Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Gateshead Corporation Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Plymouth Extension Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): One of these Amendments is a correction of a date. The others are purely verbal.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Wakefield Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered.

The Chairman of Ways and Means: These Amendments are of purely a drafting nature. Most of them are verbal only.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Shropshire Worcestershire and Staffordshire Electric Power (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Calne Water) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (INDIANISATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number and percentage of non-commissioned and commissioned Indian officers now serving in His Majesty's Army and in the Air Force in India; how many of these are of the rank of captain and why there are no Indian officers of superior rank to captain; and whether it is the intention of the Government substantially to increase the number of Indian officers and to secure that the higher officer ranks shall consist mainly of Indians?

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force. The Non-Commissioned Officer personnel of the Indian Army is entirely Indian. In addition there are some 4,000 Viceroy's Commissioned officers, who are also entirely Indian. In the officer ranks other than that of Viceroy's Commissioned officer there are 345 Indians, or slightly over 10 per cent. of the total; 71 of these are of the rank of captain. The promotion of officers of the Indian Army both British and Indian is on a time-scale basis in which the rank of major is reached after 18–20 years' service. The policy of Indianising the officer ranks was only placed on a regular footing after the War, and Indians commissioned in accordance with that system are only now approaching the seniority necessary for promotion to major. It is clear that, under the present system of Indianisation, both the total number of Indian officers and the number in the higher ranks will progressively increase. The Indian Air Force, of which the first unit was constituted in April, 1933, is organised on a somewhat different basis, but the considerations


governing the increase in the number of Indian officers holding higher ranks correspond generally to those I have stated for the Indianising units of the Indian Army. There are at present 11 Indian officers in the Indian Air Force while seven officers of the Royal Air Force are attached to it for purposes of instruction and also of command until Indian officers of the requisite seniority become available. The corresponding figures for airmen are 75 and 35.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the hon. and gallant Member for that answer, may I ask whether he can inform the House as to the original purpose of limiting the number of Indian officers in this way, and also by what date, approximately, the stage of 90 or even 100 per cent. of Indian officership will have been reached?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Off-hand I could not give the hon. Member dates, but I will try to let him know. With regard to the limitation, of course this is in the nature of novel procedure, and already there has been a considerable increase in the number of units Indianised as compared with the original estimate. Originally eight battalions were to be Indianised, and now the infantry and cavalry units alone number about 16, and, in addition, there are artillery and engineer units.

Mr. Sorensen: But could the hon. and gallant Member explain what is the purpose of the limitation?

MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total amount of revenue secured by the Government of India in 1937, and the proportion of this devoted to military purposes; and whether he is aware of continuous protests in India both against an excessive proportion of Indian revenue being devoted to military purposes and against the extent to which Central Government power and revenue limits severely the financial resources of Provincial Legislatures?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The gross revenue of the Central Government, as exhibited in the Revised Estimates for 1937–38, was Rs.122.6 crores (£91.9 millions). The gross expenditure under the head "Defence Services" included in those Estimates represents 42.8 per

cent. of this amount and 25.1 per cent. of the aggregate revenues of the Central and Provincial Governments. I am aware that the question whether an excessive proportion of Indian revenues is expended upon defence is not infrequently raised. As regards the last part of the question, the allocation of responsibilities and resources between the Central and Provincial Governments received the most careful consideration in connection with the Government of India Act, 1935. Apart, moreover, from the separation of Burma, which has occasioned a net annual loss of about Rs.2½ crores (£1.9 millions), the Central Government has in recent years relinquished to the Provinces an amount of annual revenue approaching Rs.9 crores (£6,500,000).

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the hon. and gallant Member himself agree that the percentage he gave represents a very high percentage indeed, and can he say whether any steps are to be taken to reduce that percentage?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: It is, of course, a substantial percentage, but it is approximately in accordance with what has been the case for a number of years. It is certainly true to say that the question of keeping the military expenditure of India within the limits of the necessities of India is a subject which is always under close consideration.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. and gallant Member know that there are considerable protests from representative Indians against this expenditure?

BRAZILIAN LOANS (DEFAULT).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now any statement to make on the failure of the Brazilian Government to meet their obligations; and what further action have His Majesty's Government taken in the interests of the British holders of £80,000,000 worth of these securities?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): A statement has been received from the Brazilian Government in which, while reaffirming in general terms their intention to pay within the limits of Brazil's capacity, they make no concrete suggestion on the subject. My hon. Friend may, however, rest assured that His Majesty's Government


will continue to give their fullest support to the Council of Foreign Bondholders in their efforts to secure an acceptable proposal from the Brazilian Government.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain whether the Council of Foreign Bondholders will request the Brazilian Ambassador in London to call a meeting for the purpose of arriving at an agreed settlement of the default on Brazilian obligations held by British subjects?

Mr. Butler: The Council of Foreign Bondholdres are always prepared to consider any proposal made to them by a duly accredited representative of a foreign Government. In the case of the Brazilian default the council published a statement as recently as 14th June, in which they stated that, despite their utmost endeavours, they had hitherto been unable to persuade the Brazilian Government to make any concrete proposals. In these circumstances the Council of Foreign Bondholders do not consider that my hon. Friend's suggestion would be likely to achieve any useful purpose. His Majesty's Government see no reason to differ from this view.

SPAIN.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what reports His Majesty's Government have now received concerning the nationality of the aircraft which recently sank the British steamships "Thorpehall," Greatend" and "Penthames."

Mr. Butler: I regret that I have as yet nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 1st June. In any case, His Majesty's Government, as has been previously pointed out in other instances, must regard the aircraft in question as part of the forces under the control of the Burgos authorities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have His Majesty's Government asked the masters of the ships for reports concerning the nationality of these aeroplanes?

Mr. Butler: As I informed the hon. Member on the last occasion, we were led to understand that the masters were sending us reports.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have not the Government taken any further action themselves to obtain information?

Captain McEwen: Have His Majesty's Government any information concerning the nationality of the ships in question?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether the list of prisoners of British nationality held by the forces of General Franco has yet been received?

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister the number of British subjects at present known to be held as prisoners of war by General Franco's forces in Spain; and what steps are being taken to secure their release?

Mr. Butler: One hundred and seventy-seven persons of British nationality have so far been reported by the British agent at Burgos to be held prisoners of war by General Franco's administration, and the names of these persons are being made available for publication. His Majesty's Government have made inquiries regarding the possibility of arranging the release of these men, and negotiations are at present in progress on this subject.

Mr. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the names will be published?

Mr. Butler: I hope when we have verified the lists, and got the addresses clear. They will then be placed by the Foreign Office at the disposal of the London and Provincial Press in the various parts of the country from which those persons came.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether, to sustain British prestige, he will inform General Franco that any further bombings of the Union Jack by the insurgent forces in the Spanish Civil War will be countered by retaliatory measures on the part of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 14th June, from which he will have seen that His Majesty's Government have considered retaliatory action of various kinds, but, as at present advised, are not prepared to embark on such measures, which, apart from their inherent disadvantages, cannot be relied upon to attain their object.

Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that the mere threat of firm action, if clearly backed by resolution, might well prove effective, as in the case of Czechoslovakia a few weeks ago?

Mr. Thurtle: Does the reply of the Government mean that Franco may go on bombing ships with impunity?

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: May I ask—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on with Questions.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has laid before the Italian Government the evidence in his possession as to the bombing of British ships in Spanish waters by Italian aeroplanes?

Mr. Butler: All representations on the subject of aircraft forming part of General Franco's forces must, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be addressed to the Burgos authorities.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it to be understood from that reply that His Majesty's Government have made no representations to the Italian Government, although it has been established that these attacks upon British ships have been made by Italian aircraft with Italian pilots?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must understand from what I said in my reply that all representations on the subject of aircraft forming part of General Franco's forces should, in our view, be addressed to the Burgos authorities.

Hon. Members: Why?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not unreasonable—

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Would not this whole problem be solved if some of the directors of these lines who are sending ships out to Spain had to sail with the ships?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what are the commodities which the Spanish insurgent authorities have suggested should be barred from British ships trading with ports under Spanish Government control?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have received from the Burgos authori-

ties no list of such commodities, and I cannot at present add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 14th June.

Mr. Strauss: Does that answer mean that the Burgos authorities suggested that there should be some cargoes excluded without indicating what they are?

Mr. Butler: They suggested that the port should not be used for the purpose of supplying the Spanish Government with munitions and other commodities.

Sir Percy Harris: Would the Government consider withdrawing the Non-Intervention observers for their own safety, as several of them have been killed, and because they are no protection against attack from the air?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to the military mission of Spanish insurgent officers, under General Orgay, which arrived in Berlin on 10th June, and whether the object of this visit was to obtain additional assistance from Germany for the insurgent forces?

Mr. Butler: I have seen reports in the Press regarding this mission, and am making inquiries.

Mr. Roberts: Would the hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether a consultation has taken place between those officers and leading munition makers and armament firms in Germany?

Mr. Butler: I have told the hon. Gentleman that we are making inquiries.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister how many British ships have been attacked to date by Spanish insurgent aeroplanes; how many have been sunk; how many damaged; how many British lives have been lost in these attacks; at what the total amount of damage done to such British ships is assessed; how many protests have been addressed to General Franco; what claims have been made against General Franco for damage to ships and for compensation for killed and wounded men, respectively; how many of such claims have been admitted by General Franco; and how much has been received from him in regard to them?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Member asks a number of detailed questions.


I will, with his permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Since the beginning of the civil war three British ships have been sunk and 10 seriously damaged in the course of attacks by such aircraft, while some 43 others have sustained lesser damages, in most cases of a minor character. I regret to say that 21 lives have been lost in these attacks, at least 13 of them being British. As regards the total amount of damage done, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss (Rathbone) on 24th March. Protests have been addressed to General Franco in the matter on five distinct occasions, sometimes in respect of a single attack, while on other occasions the protest was of a more comprehensive character. As regards claims for compensation, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister how many British ships have been bombed in or near Spanish Government ports since 14th June?

Mr. Butler: According to my information, four British ships have been damaged by bombing in Spanish Government ports since 14th June.

Mr. Strauss: As 14th June was the date of the Prime Minister's protest in this House, does that not show that the Burgos authorities treat all protests by His Majesty's Government with complete contempt?

Miss Rathbone: Will the hon. Gentleman state when the Prime Minister will act upon the mild threat he made on 14th June that friendly relations with the Burgos authorities would be broken off if there was any more bombing: and how many more bombings there have been since then?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first supplementary question is that there is no evidence that any of these attacks was deliberate, and to the second, that the Prime Minister does not make mild threats.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement made yesterday by the so-called Minister of the

Interior of the Spanish insurgent government to the effect that all ships coming to Spanish Government ports were pirate ships, and that they intended to destroy them?

Mr. Butler: I have not seen the statement; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will bring it to my notice.

Mr. Noel-Baker: When the hon. Gentleman says there is no evidence that these attacks were deliberate, does he mean that he had received reports from the masters of the ships to say that they were not?

Mr. Butler: No, it means that we have no evidence that the attacks were deliberate.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Spanish insurgent authorities to the protest made by His Majesty's Government on 4th June against the bombing of civilian populations in Spain; and whether he has any statement to make on the proposal for sending an international commission to Spain to report on the damage caused by air bombing?

Mr. Butler: The Burgos authorities, in reply to His Majesty's Government's protests regarding the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of towns and villages, in particular of Alicante and Granollers, contend that these towns contain military objectives placed in or close to inhabited districts, and that their bombardment is unavoidable. As regards the second part of the question, I am glad to be able to announce that arrangements are nearing conclusion for the early despatch to France of a commission consisting of British, Swedish and Norwegian experts to report on aerial bombardments in Spain. This commission, whose headquarters will probably be at Toulouse, will be prepared to proceed to any part of Spain, at the request of either side in Spain, and report the facts concerning the bombardment by air of towns or villages.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not a fact that His Majesty's Government sent the British Minister to one of the towns where, according to the information of the Under-Secretary, as he has just mentioned, there was no military objective and bombing was justifiable; and did not the British


Minister report that there was no military objective and that the bombing was unjustifiable?

Mr. Butler: I have given an answer to the question that is on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have His Majesty's Government received any evidence from the British military attaché in Spain concerning the existence of military objectives in the towns which have been bombed?

Mr. Butler: That is a very broad question. I shall be replying to the detailed points raised by the right hon. Gentleman when we reach the next question on the Paper.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what report has been received from the British Minister in Barcelona with regard to the presence of military objectives in Granollers, Spain?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Minister at Barcelona has reported that the town of Granollers contains a small barracks lived in by some 300 troops, a garage used to erect aeroplane engines, a small generating station for the supply of the town, a railway bridge and a railway station. These points were, however, well outside the area which suffered the full force of the bombardment. With the exception of a group of six or seven bombs, which fell in a field outside the town and far away from any target, and of three which burst at the railway station, all fell in the centre of the town.

Mr. Henderson: Has this information been passed on to the Burgos authorities; and, if so, has any reply been received?

Mr. Butler: It has not yet been passed on, but I have no doubt that it will be.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not quite clear from the answer that this town was a perfectly legitimate military objective?

Mr. V. Adams: Is it not quite clear that His Majesty's Government do not credit the reply of the Burgos authorities?

Mr. Butler: We regard the military objectives in this town as extremely limited.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister the nationality of the warship that recently bombarded Castellon?

Mr. Butler: I have received no reports to show that Castellon was bombarded by any warships.

Mr. Strauss: Since all the news agencies reported that Castellon was bombarded by warships, I wanted to ask whether the hon. Gentleman will find out if that is so, and whether there is any definite evidence that will confirm or deny the statement made in responsible quarters that these were German warships?

Mr. Butler: I cannot officially confirm or deny that there was any bombardment.

Mr. David Grenfell: Have the naval officers in Spanish waters been told to put the telescope to the blind eye?

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the recent proceedings of the Opium Board at Geneva; and whether he proposes to make any representations to the Japanese Government concerning the evidence there given that that Government is actively aiding and abetting illegal drug traffic in China?

Mr. Butler: I have seen Press reports of the allegations made against the Japanese Government before the Opium Advisory Committee at Geneva, but as I have not yet received any official account of the proceedings, I am unable to state what action, if any, it would be proper for His Majesty's Government to take in this connection. The question of representations to the Japanese Government is being given careful consideration by the Departments concerned.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have the Government any independent evidence of their own on this matter and, if so, does it tend to confirm the statements which were made at Geneva?

Mr. Butler: I should rather await the official information and the report of the Opium Advisory Committee. We do receive reports from various sources.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I asked whether the Government do receive such reports; may I ask whether they tend to confirm statements that were made at Geneva on the subject?

Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government have taken upon the report of the Commander-in-Chief, China station, on the question of freedom of transit for British shipping on the Yangtse?

Mr. Butler: Following upon his return from a tour of inspection of the River Yangtse, the Commander-in-Chief, China station, pressed the Japanese military and naval authorities at Shanghai to allow freedom of transit for British merchant shipping through the boom at Kiangyin in order that trade with ports above this point might be resumed. The Japanese replied regretting their inability to accede to the request on the grounds of military necessity. His Majesty's Government feel that while there may be some grounds for the refusal based on the above reason, provided no discrimination is permitted, they are not satisfied with the position and are considering whether any further steps can be taken in the matter.

Mr. Charlton: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a detailed statement on the extent to which British interests have been affected by the seizure by the Japanese of Chinese cotton mills in which British subjects have an interest, whether by mortgage of the machinery or otherwise, and particularly whether the machinery, which is the subject of a lien for money advanced, has been removed to Japan?

Mr. Butler: Although there have been frequent reports that the Japanese authorities intend to confiscate and operate Chinese mills in the areas under their control, I am not aware that there has been any actual seizure of such mills, and I am consequently not in a position to make a detailed statement. It is, however, clear that the continued non-operation of many Chinese mills in which British subjects are interested, whether by the supply of machinery or otherwise, is bound to have an adverse effect on British interests in the Chinese textile market. As regards the machinery removed from Sung Sing Mill No. 7, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, this was restored as a result of strong representa-

tions by His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether a considered reply has now been received from the Japanese Government to the protest made by His Majesty's Government against the recent air bombing of the civilian population in Canton, China?

Mr. Butler: I have at present nothing to add to what I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) on 15th June.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, since this protest was sent to the Japanese Government, the chief of the special navy section in Shanghai has stated that the Japanese intend to continue bombing operations on Canton, and have done so on several occasions since?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of that, but we hope to receive a considered reply, and will certainly inform the hon. Member when we do so.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a satisfactory reply from the Japanese Government to the representations of His Majesty's Government that an opportunity should be afforded to the representatives of the British bondholders of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway to inspect and survey the line, and that the necessary measures should be taken to safeguard their financial interests in the line?

Mr. Butler: Further representations in the matter have been made to the Japanese Government, but I regret that the position is still as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 23rd May.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet had any satisfactory reply to his representations to the Japanese Government that they should permit the free circulation of the tramcars of the British-owned Shanghai Electric Construction Company in the Hongkew and Yangtzepoo districts of the international settlement, particularly in order to facilitate the resumption of work in British and other factories in the districts?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is awaiting a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai on the most recent steps taken by him in this matter.

Mr. Moreing: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is no evasion on the part of the Japanese authorities in regard to giving an answer to the strong representations which His Majesty's Government are making on this matter? It is some time since the matter was raised; has any reply been received?

Mr. Butler: I hope we shall receive a reply. The whole question of the restoration of the northern district of Shanghai is under our constant consideration.

POLAND (UKRAINIAN ORGANISATIONS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he will ask His Majesty's Minister at Warsaw for information about the suppression of Ukrainian organisations in Poland, in particular the union of Ukrainian women and various Ukrainian workers' organisations; and as to whether this action is the result of these organisations demanding autonomy in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers of 11th July, 1919; and whether His Majesty's Government, as one of the guarantors of that decision, will protest against such acts of repression?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is kept regularly informed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw of the internal situation in Poland. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot trace any decision of the Supreme Council of 11th July, 1919, on this subject, nor am I aware of any such decision which is guaranteed by His Majesty's Government. The decision of the Ambassadors' Conference of 15th March, 1923, on which, I understand, the recent claim of the Ukrainian National Democrat party to autonomy was based, fixed certain Polish frontiers under Article 87, paragraph 3, of the Treaty of Versailles, and contained a reference to Poland's recognition that the ethnographic conditions in Eastern Galicia required an autonomous régime, but His Majesty's Government gave no guarantee in connection therewith, and the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

ANGLO-ITALIAN AGREEMENT.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that, in connection with the Anglo-Italian negotiations, the British Government will not contemplate the authorisation of any form of financial assistance, credit, or guarantee to the Italian Government or Italian merchants for the purchase of wheat?

Mr. Butler: The question of credits in any form was not raised by either side during the negotiations which led up to the Agreement of 16th April, and no other negotiations with Italy on this subject are contemplated by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the recent Anglo-Italian Agreement will be brought into force?

Mr. Butler: Both His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government are anxious for the Agreement to be brought into full force as soon as possible. The conditions, however, by which the entry into force of the Agreement are governed, have been publicly and repeatedly stated, and I have nothing to add to what has been already said.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do I understand that there is no time limit within which the agreement must be brought into force?

Mr. Butler: I have nothing to add to the conditions which have been laid down on this question by the Prime Minister.

Mr. A. Henderson: Have any representations been made by the Italian Government to the effect that this date should be expedited?

Mr. Butler: I should certainly want notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the hon. Gentleman refer to any statement which gives a definition of the expression "a settlement in Spain"?

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the wide publicity given to this point in the Press this morning, has the hon. Gentleman no statement to give to the House this afternoon?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I have no statement to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the report from Rome that Count Ciano asked, on 4th June—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot pursue this subject further at Question Time.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with the recent Anglo-Italian Agreement, he can now define what is meant by a settlement of the Spanish question?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has nothing to add to the statement which he made in the Debate on 2nd May.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Does that mean that the Government still accept Signor Mussolini's condition that a settlement in Spain shall mean the victory of General Franco?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. The Prime Minister, on the contrary, gave in the Debate a very good reason for not defining the question more closely, and that is what my answer means.

Mr. Grenfell: If the Prime Minister says one thing and Signor Mussolini another, who is to decide?

CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prejudicial effect that external propaganda will have on the conclusion of a satisfactory agreement between the Czechoslovakian Government and the Sudeten Germans, His Majesty's Government will make proposals to the interested Governments in Europe with a view to securing a cessation of all such propaganda during the period of the negotiations?

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made by the Prime Minister in the House on 23rd May and 14th June. The principal concern of His Majesty's Government has been, as it remains, to use all their influence, wherever it could be effective, on the side of restraint, the absence of which, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, must increase the difficulty of reaching a successful issue to the negotiations referred to.

Mr. Boothby: Have His Majesty's Government made any diplomatic representations?

Mr. Butler: I think the answer I have just given should serve the purpose that my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May we take it that the word "restraint" will not be used in restraint of liberty?

TERRITORIAL WATERS (DEFINITION).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's considered view with regard to the status of territorial waters; and what steps he is taking to get other Powers to agree with this view?

Mr. Butler: The territorial waters of a country are considered as being within its exclusive jurisdiction subject to certain rights of passage. I am not aware of any substantial difference of view in regard to this matter.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does not the status of territorial waters remain inviolate both in peace-time and in wartime?

Mr. Butler: I do not quite follow my hon and gallant Friend's definition of territorial waters. I have done my best to give my own definition in my original answer.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I try—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has given his reply.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. My hon. Friend was not able to understand my supplementary question; may I not try to make it clear to him?

Mr. Speaker: I understood it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FEEDING STUFFS (PRICES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture (1), what steps the Government are taking to protect the poultry farmers against a rise in the price of feeding-stuffs, since a further rise might entail the cost of production being in excess of the selling price;
(2), what steps the Government are taking to stabilise the price of feeding-stuffs for cattle required by farmers against recurring increase by speculators in wheat.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to him on 28th February last.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the Government doing anything about this matter? Are we always to be referred back? Is my right hon. Friend aware that down Evesham way they want to know what is taking place, and what is the rate of progress?

Mr. Morrison: I told my hon. Friend, in the answer to which I have referred him, that the prices of feeding stuffs depend upon world conditions in general, and no Government is able to control them.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we always to be at the mercy of the millers? Will not something be done to tell the millers that offals should be cheaper?

Mr. Moreing: Is it not a fact that the inhabitants of Evesham and district are confirmed optimists?

OWLS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent decision of his Department that the little owl, together with all other British owls, are beneficent rather than harmful to agriculture, he proposes to take any steps to make this decision generally known throughout the countryside, in view of the prejudice which exists to the contrary in many districts?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The findings contained in the recent report of the British Trust for Ornithology as to the beneficent character of the little owl have received wide publicity through the medium of the Press and broadcast talks, and in the circumstances I do not consider that any further steps in this direction are called for. I would add that my Department has also issued a leaflet dealing with the little owl, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not a matter of prejudice but of knowledge and experience, and that little owls do a great amount of harm to young poultry and pheasant chicks?

Mr. Morrison: I will send to my hon. and gallant Friend also a copy of the leaflet to which I have referred, from

which he will see that exhaustive tests have been made of the feeding habits of this bird, and the researches show quite definitely that, although there may be some bad individuals, it is, on the whole, a good bird.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it not a fact that the bad individuals greatly outnumber the good ones?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

WHEAT ACREAGE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated acreage area of wheat reported by the Ministry's crop reporters as planted for this present year?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: From reports received from the Ministry's crop reporters it is estimated that the area in England and Wales under wheat this year amounts to roughly 1,800,000 acres. Precise figures obtained through the Annual Agricultural Returns will not be available until early in August.

Mr. Day: Have these returns been checked from the returns supplied by the agricultural holders?

Mr. Morrison: As I have told the hon. Member, precise information will not be available until early in August.

EGGS.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture the net weighted average prices that producers received per dozen for national-mark eggs and eggs at country markets during 1937?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that the necessary information is not available to enable precise calculations to be made of the net weighted average prices per dozen received by producers during 1937 for either National Mark eggs or eggs sold at country markets.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the poultry department of the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge is self-supporting; and whether its financial position in this respect is able to provide free blood-testing and free post-mortems for accredited breeders of poultry as is announced to take place immediately?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The free services to accredited


breeders of poultry are being provided at the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge in accordance with arrangements made under Section 24 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Sir G. Fox: Can my right hon. Friend state the total amount of money which is necessary for financing these free services, and the total capital expenditure necessary for extending the laboratory at Weybridge; and does he, in view of the large amount of private money that is invested in private laboratories in this country, think that this expenditure of public capital is justified?

Mr. Morrison: I have informed my hon. Friend that the position is that the ordinary work of the laboratory is self-supporting and is paid for by the fees charged. In connection with the Agriculture Act of last year, provision was made out of moneys provided by Parliament for these particular free services to be provided.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the official announcement that free blood-testing and free post-mortems will be provided to accredited breeds of poultry from 1st July, it is the intention of his Department to compel accredited breeders to test with the Ministry, or whether they can, if they wish, test with any of the approved laboratories?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The free services to accredited breeders of poultry in England and Wales under Section 24 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, are being provided only at the Ministry's laboratory at Weybridge. No provision has, therefore, been made in the accredited poultry breeding stations scheme for the ensuing season for blood tests and post-mortem examinations for the purposes of the scheme to be carried out at other laboratories.

Sir G. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that private enterprise will suffer as a result of these activities by the Department, and is there any evidence that private enterprise has not served the industry well in the past, working under the supervision of his Department?

Mr. Morrison: I see no reason why private enterprise should suffer through these activities; but surely it is reasonable, when Parliament is providing the money, that the work should be carried out under Parliamentary control?

MILK.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the results of the experiments, carried out under the auspices of his Department, of feeding calves on pasteurised milk, as compared with raw milk, show which of the two types of milk can be regarded as being without doubt the more desirable for human consumption?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The present position of experimental work on the feeding of pasteurised milk to cows is set out in a report on dairy research recently published by the Agricultural Research Council, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Macquisten: Why is it called raw milk? It is fresh milk; calves have been fed for countless generations on it, and they still survive.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (VACCINE EXPERIMENTS).

Sir J. Leech: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is conferring with the Danish Government as to the results of the foot-and-mouth vaccine experiments at Reims Island; and whether His Majesty's Government are testing the efficacy of the vaccine?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have seen reports on the active immunisation of animals against foot-and-mouth disease in Germany. In a preliminary scientific account that has been published, no details are given of the methods of preparation of the vaccine, but it is stated that they will be published in the near future. The results of the use of the vaccine in the field will also be published later. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee is aware of the work which has been carried out in Denmark and its recent application in Germany, and is keeping in touch with the situation.

REJECTED BULLS.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the hardship inflicted on the farmer who has a bull which is rejected as unsuitable for being licensed for stock purposes, in that the farmer is prohibited from taking such bull to a mart to be sold; and will the Minister consider amending the Act to make it permissible for the farmer to sell such a bull at a public mart with proper safeguards as to the subsequent slaughter of the animal?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Under the existing procedure a farmer owning a rejected bull which he does not wish to castrate is required to move the bull direct to a slaughterhouse. While I can understand the desire of a fanner to avail himself of such competition as would be afforded by the sale of the animal in a public market, the hon. Member will appreciate that the object of the Licensing of Bulls Act would be defeated if such a bull were sold at a market and were not immediately slaughtered thereafter. I have recently reviewed the existing procedure and have come to the conclusion that the provision of the safeguards which would be necessitated by the procedure suggested would be impracticable on grounds of administrative difficulty and expense.

Mr. Hopkin: Is it not a fact that these rejected bulls are so marked with an "R" that it would be impossible for them to be sold without the officials knowing? Is the Minister aware that owing to this fact the price received for these bulls is altogether out of proportion to their value?

Mr. Morrison: In individual cases where hardship arises through there being no competition for the bull, I have power to make an exception and I am very willing to consider any particular case of hardship which may arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

POSTMEN, EASTBOURNE (WEEKLY HALF-HOLIDAY).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the East-bourne Town Council decided to recommend that the postmen in their area should be given a weekly half-holiday; that the postmaster, in reply, stated that he had received objections to the recommendation and therefore did not propose to carry it out; and that the town council thereupon decided, by a substantial majority, to reaffirm their previous decision; and whether, in view of the fact that some years ago the half-holiday was taken away on the recommendation of the town council, he will give instructions that the recommendation of the responsible local authority to restore it shall be adopted?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, but it is not the practice to act on such a recommendation if, as is the case at Eastbourne, there is evidence of public opposition.

Mr. Kelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give further consideration to this matter, in view of the fact that there is a large volume of opinion in favour of it?

Sir W. Womersley: I will certainly give further consideration to it, but so far the volume of public opinion has been the other way.

Mr. Attlee: On the previous occasion when the half-holiday was taken away, was there not opposition to that?

Sir W. Womersley: No; when the half-holiday was taken away it was on the recommendation of the council, supported by commercial interests and other influential organisations.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the mass of the people?

Sir W. Womersley: There was a small amount of opposition, but it was only very small.

PROPOSED NEW OFFICE, STOKE-ON-TRENT.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Postmaster-General whether the site has now been selected for the Stoke-on-Trent new central post office; if so, where is the site; when is it intended to start building; and when is the building to be completed?

Sir W. Womersley: A site has not been definitely settled, and it is, therefore, not possible to give the other information asked for.

RURAL OFFICES, LEWIS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give favourable consideration to the request of the Lewis District Council at its meeting in January last that all rural post offices in the island should be authorised to issue money orders and accept parcels for foreign delivery, in view of the many complaints that at present people in some villages have to walk four or five miles to reach offices with fuller authority than the village offices?

Sir W. Womersley: There is no record or recollection of representations on this


matter from the Lewis District Council; but I will have inquiry made, and write to the hon. Member.

Mr. MacMillan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my statement that the Lewis District Council agreed on representations about three months ago, and will he accept these representations from me now?

Sir W. Womersley: If the council have written to the hon. Member, surely they ought to send a duplicate copy to me or to my right hon. Friend?

TELEGRAPHIC AND TELEPHONIC FACILITIES, OUTER HEBRIDES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made with the installation of wireless telegraphy and the telephony system in the Outer Hebrides; and when it is to be in full operation?

Sir W. Womersley: The arrangements mentioned in my reply of 28th February to the hon. Member's earlier inquiry on the subject are progressing according to schedule. A good deal of construction work is involved, including the erection of buildings and aerials and the laying of submarine cables in difficult waters; but it is expected that call office facilities from Castlebay and Lochboisdale to the mainland will be available by the summer of 1939 and from Lochmaddy to the mainland by the end of that year. In addition, arrangements are being made to augment the existing cable telephone service between the islands of Lewis and Harris and the mainland by the provision of two wireless telephone channels, which it is hoped will be ready for service by October next. It is not proposed to provide wireless telegraph circuits to supplement the existing telegraph services.

Mr. MacMillan: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the sub-post office in the island of Scarp, in the Outer Hebrides, is the only one under Stornoway control which is without the telephone, and that there has been a demand for years for its installation, he will take action to meet this need of the people of the island and visitors to the place?

Sir W. Womersley: The provision of telephone service to the island of Scarp would involve the laying of a submarine

cable and would be very costly. As there are only about 90 inhabitants on Scarp, the cost would be out of all proportion to the telephone revenue likely to be obtained; and I regret that the desired extension could not be justified.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply mean that the abject poverty of the Post Office is the only obstacle?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. It is the uneconomic proposal put forward by the hon. Member.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not the convenience of the people, who, after all, do subscribe to the national revenue, enter into it at all?

Sir W. Womersley: We always take into account the convenience of the people, but we also have to take into account the British taxpayer.

Mr. MacMillan: Is it not a fact that 99 people in that place are just as important, and may be just as good revenue payers, as 99 people anywhere else?

Sir W. Womersley: My information is 90.

TELEPHONE BELLS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange to supply domestic and other telephone subscribers, when requested, with an alternative, more euphonious, type of bell, or with lights, soft buzzers, or some device for calling subscribers, less liable unnecessarily to distract the household or to disturb invalids and children?

Sir W. Womersley: The use of lamp signals or soft buzzers instead of bells is open to the objection that the telephone is not as a rule under continuous observation and the signal is thus likely to be missed. The present type of bell has not given rise to any general complaint; but the Post Office is quite prepared to meet subscribers' wishes in exceptional cases.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the hon. Member aware that, in fact, there are many complaints in households, leading to unfortunate language at times, and will he not at least provide the option to subscribers of having a less annoying kind of bell?

Sir W. Womersley: In exceptional cases, where there is sickness or where it is necessary that there should be quiet—which does not apply to the ordinary


household—there are ways and means of softening the bell, practised by many of our subscribers, by inserting a little blotting paper.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that that is the official recommendation—to insert blotting paper.

Sir W. Womersley: I am describing what some people do—not making a recommendation.

Captain Plugge: Is my hon. Friend aware that in France, where they use the same system—the Western Electric—the light system has been available to subscribers for many years past?

ROYAL PARKS (SPORTS AND RECREATION FACILITIES).

Sir T. Moore: asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps are being taken by his Department to provide additional facilities and encouragement to the public for recreation in the parks under his control since the passage of the Physical Training and Recreation Act?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): The facilities for sports and recreation provided in the Royal Parks are very extensive. They include 129 football pitches, 47 cricket pitches, 29 tennis courts, 14 hockey pitches, three golf courses and a polo ground, besides facilities for athletics, boating, lacrosse, netball, rowing, riding and organised children's games. The polo ground and four football pitches have been added since the date to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Bellenger: With relation to the grant made to the polo ground, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that ground is used by the general public?

Sir P. Sassoon: It is open to the general public.

INSURANCE RATES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire as to whether the present rates for life and other insurance charged by the various insurance offices to-day are equitable and in the interest of the public, having regard to the extent of the accumulated

reserves of these tariff offices; and as to whether these large reserves have been accumulated on account of the excessive margins charged?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not disposed to question the wisdom of accumulating sufficient reserves in this class of business, in which security is a paramount consideration, and sees no necessity for an inquiry of the kind referred to.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend not aware how desirable it is that young people should be able to effect life insurance, and that they are often precluded by the very high rates charged? Does he not, in view of that, consider that the whole matter should be investigated?

Sir J. Simon: One of the most important considerations in regard to insurance is that there should be security, and that the benefits should be paid.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not also a fact that if you insure the very young you get a much lower rate?

TAX INSPECTOR'S STAFF, CHORLEY (REHOUSING).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any further progress has been made with the rehousing of the staff of His Majesty's inspector of taxes, 10, Park Road, Chorley, Lancashire; whether he is aware that, in the course of these negotiations, a well-known local firm of builders wrote to the Office of Works offering to build a lessor building to the specification of the Office of Works and that suitable sites were available, but that the Office of Works have not acknowledged the original letter; and whether he will make inquiries into the position to ensure that, when offers of this kind are made, early acknowledgments are sent to the builders?

Sir P. Sassoon: The question of re-housing this staff is being actively pursued, but no satisfactory scheme has yet been devised. I can find no trace of an offer by a firm of builders to erect a building, but a letter asking for particulars of the size of the site required for an Excise Office was received; it is very much regretted that through an oversight an acknowledgment was not sent in this case, but I can assure the hon. Member


that offers when received are normally acknowledged and investigated without delay.

COASTAL PRESERVATION.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Health whether any instructions are issued to local authorities carrying out planning schemes in connection with coastal preservation that in all cases provision must be made to prevent the loss of public access to the land immediately above high-water mark in consequence of erosion?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): It is for the planning authority to decide in the first instance what provisions should be included in their scheme; but the hon. Member may rest assured that, whenever a scheme affecting the coast line is submitted to my right hon. Friend for approval, the question of securing public access to cliff or beach will receive his special attention.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister draw attention to the fact that something should be done to place the cost of any work that has been done if the coast is destroyed by the rubbish put out by various companies, such as coal, and so on?

Mr. Bernays: I cannot answer that question without notice. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind I shall be glad to give the matter consideration.

Mr. Gallacher: I will send the hon. Gentleman a case.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in order to preserve the coast, especially in rural areas, consideration will be given to the giving of special grants to local authorities who undertake the necessary work in this direction?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15th February to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson).

Mr. Gallacher: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any consideration at all has been given to the foreshore at Buckhaven

and to the work that it is necessary to do there in order to overcome the damage which has been done by the Wellesley Redd Bing?

Mr. Cross: I think that the whole of that is rather covered by the answer to which I have referred.

SKILLED LABOURERS, ROSYTH (WAGES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that splicers at the boom depot training school, Rosyth, are doing riggers work and training riggers for the new boom boats, while they themselves are drawing 19s. per week less than riggers or the men they are training; and whether he will consider classifying wire splicers as riggers, with a view to their receiving the recognised wages for the job they are performing?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): The men being trained by the wire splicers at Rosyth Boom Defence Depot are not riggers but skilled labourers. Wire splicers are not being employed on rigger's work and their rates of pay are considered appropriate to the duties which they are required to perform.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that this is the first time that I have heard this described as skilled labour. They are either skilled men, or they are not. If they are skilled men, is it not proper to see that they get wages commensurate with the work that they are doing?

Colonel Llewellin: There is a very large class of man employed in dockyards and other Admiralty establishments who are termed skilled labourers.

Mr. Alexander: What are they taught? Are they being taught wire splicing?

Colonel Llewellin: They are being taught duties appropriate to wire splicing.

SOLICITORS' ACCOUNTS.

Sir J. Leech: asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact that the Solicitors Accounts Rules have failed to prevent fraudulent conversion by solicitors, as disclosed by 23 convictions in the criminal courts since 1935, he will, for the protection of the public, seek legislative power to examine and certify


solicitors' accounts by a system of periodical audit by officers of the Central Government or by the accounting officers of the local public authority?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): As my right hon. and learned Friend stated in answers to previous questions, this general matter is under consideration by the Law Society who hope shortly to formulate proposals.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest to the Law Society that solicitors should be compelled to employ competent auditors to go through their books?

The Solicitor-General: I think that, as the previous answers of my right hon. and learned Friend show, the whole matter is under consideration by the Law Society at the present time, and, obviously, it would be desirable to await their proposals before any steps are taken.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 1934.

Sir William Davison: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of the serious difficulties which are frequently arising in the courts in relation to claims on behalf of the estates of deceased persons on the grounds of expectation of life under Section 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934; whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Mr. Justice Charles, in giving judgment in the case of Bailey v. Howard, when he affirmed that under the above Act juries had the duty imposed upon them of solving a problem which it was impossible for them accurately to determine, there being no guide whereby damages might be assessed, and any assessment arrived at being only guesswork as to what expectation of life in the particular case might be; and what action the Government propose to take in this matter?

The Solicitor-General: I am aware that result of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934, referred to in the question is regarded by some as creating difficulties in its application. It is not proposed to take action in this matter but the working of this and other recent Law Reform Acts is kept under review.

Sir W. Davison: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think it desirable that Parliament should take immediate action in regard to a Statute where juries assess damages in similar cases varying from a few pounds in one case to many thousands of pounds in another and where a judge has said that there was no guide whatever as to the method of assessment given in the Statute?

The Solicitor-General: This is not the only kind of instance where juries give different decisions in different cases which are somewhat parallel; and as regards the last part of the question of my hon. Friend, the instance that he gives is at the present moment under appeal, and he will, therefore, appreciate the undesirability of saying anything about it.

UNITED KINGDOM AND EIRE (AGREEMENTS).

Sir W. Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to a public statement made by Mr. Sean O'Kelly, the Vice-President and Minister for Local Government of the Eire Executive Council, to the effect that the Government of Eire had administered a sound whipping to John Bull in the recent Agreement between Great Britain and the Government of Eire; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in the matter, as this statement directly conflicts with the assurances given by Mr. de Valera, prior to the signing of the Agreement, that the concessions made by Great Britain to the Government of Eire under the Agreement would undoubtedly result in the promotion of good feeling between the two countries?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Lord Stanley): The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes." As regards the second part, no action has been taken.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. O'Kelly is the Deputy-Prime Minister of Eire, and that after making this statement he was in communication with the Prime Minister, Mr. de Valera, and that Mr. de Valera has never repudiated in any way this statement; and is it not desirable, having regard to the statements which were made


in this House, that we should know where Great Britain stands in this matter.

Lord Stanley: My hon. Friend knows, as well as I do, with his great experience of general elections the deteriorating effect they sometimes have on speechmaking. The speech of Mr. O'Kelly does not represent the view that is generally taken of the Agreements with Eire, and I think that it might be as well if I quote a passage from Mr. de Valera's election address in which he says:
To promote harmony and good will among all sections of the Irish people and friendly relations with the neighbouring peoples of Britain must in the coming years be a chief preoccupation of those who are given the commission of government.
I think that in those circumstances the speech of Mr. O'Kelly might well be ignored.

Sir Ronald Ross: Would my right hon. Friend like me to draw his attention to other less cordial utterances, or would he rather not hear them?

ARMY RESERVISTS.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many ex-service men who had completed their colour service still feel that they were wronged by the economy cuts of 1933, and that those completing their reserve period were then informed that re-engagement was impossible owing to the fact that the economy cuts were still in operation, and whether, in view of the necessity of increasing the strength of the reserve forces and air-raid precautions, he will consider the advisability of removing these injustices, which would bring into service again those who are now much needed and are, by their past service, so well qualified for the work?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the economy cuts made in 1931. I am unable to admit the suggestion in the question that the imposition of these economy cuts constituted an injustice. Moreover, the reductions in the daily rates of pay of Army reservists then made have already been restored in favour of men who had enlisted before 1st October, 1931. Re-engagement or enlistment in Section

"D" of the Army Reserve is a privilege and not a right, and the numbers permitted to join are regulated by the needs of the Army from time to time.

PRIVATE HIRE CARS.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the anxiety felt by the London cab trade caused by the large number of motor cars now taking passengers in London which are not licensed as taximeter-cabs, and are under no control of any authority or restraint of any regulations for public passenger-carrying vehicles, which are equipped with taximeters fitted in concealed positions, the charges being considerably less than the statutory fares which drivers of taximeter-cabs are compelled to charge; and whether, as this competition is unfair to the licensed drivers of taximeter-cabs, many of whom are ex-service men who have been trained under the British Legion taximeter-cab school scheme, he will take steps to stop this unfair competition?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave last Thursday on this subject to questions by the hon. Members for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) and South Islington (Mr. Cluse).

PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary the number of hours of duty and rates of pay of unestablished classes of officers, men and women, who are employed in the prison service; and whether, in view of the pending improvements in the pay of established classes in the prison service, he will consider increasing the pay and improving the conditions of service of unestablished ranks, including the quasi-permanent classes?

Mr. Lloyd: The hours of duty of quasi-permanent officers engaged as night patrols are six shifts of 10 hours each a week, and for stokers and others not less than 48 hours a week. The present rates of pay are, in the case of quasi-permanent officers, 53s. 6d. a week for men and 40s. 6d. for women, and in the case of temporary officers, 8s. 4d. a day for men


and for women 5s. 2d. to 6s. 4d. a day according to locality. The question of the pay of these unestablished employés is at present under consideration. No changes in the hours of duty are contemplated.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that unestablished civilian instructors in various trades in prison and Borstal establishments are being paid at lower rates of pay than other instructors in various Government Departments, whose work would be similar; and whether he will state the classes and the Departments on which these pay rates have been fixed?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend is not aware that the rates of pay of civilian instructors employed in prisons and Borstal institutions compare unfavourably with the rates of pay of instructors employed by the Air Ministry and War Office.

Mr. McEntee: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "not unfavourably"? If they are less surely they are unfavourable. Is he aware that they are less than those in other departments for similar work?

Mr. Lloyd: They are not, according to my information.

Mr. McEntee: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of much discontent in the prison service in consequence of the operation of the bell scales regulating the hours of duty of officers; that during certain hours of the day or evening the prisons and institutions are controlled by skeleton staffs; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in future the shifts have a proper complement of staff to man the establishments?

Mr. Lloyd: The new time tables have been drawn up in consultation with the staffs so as to secure an adequate complement of officers at all periods of the day, and the staffs of the prisons in which the shift system is in operation have been augmented for this purpose. While representations in regard to particular features of the time tables have been made and considered, the Prison Commissioners are not aware of any general discontent in regard to them. The effects of the new time tables were fully explained to the Arbitration Tribunal and account was taken of them in fixing the new rates of pay.

STREET MEETINGS, BETHNAL GREEN.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the disturbance in Bethnal Green on Wednesday evening, 15th June; and whether he is aware that a procession of 150 persons was permitted to march down the Bethnal Green Road in spite of it being an area in which processions are prohibited; and will he take steps to protect the residents of Bethnal Green from the assembly of large crowds, mostly drawn from districts outside, many of whom were there apparently with the direct object of causing a disturbance?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has received a full report on this incident from the Commissioner of Police. A Fascist meeting was held in Club Row, which was attended by about 200 people. At the close of this meeting these people would have dispersed in the ordinary way, but an opposition meeting was held about half a mile away which was attended by about 2,000 people, and at the close of the Fascist meeting the Fascists were surrounded by so large and hostile a crowd that there was a risk of serious disorder. In order to get the Fascists away the police arranged to escort them down Bethnal Green Road, and it is no doubt this arrangement which has given rise to the suggestion that a procession was permitted. As regards the last part of the question, while it is impossible to prevent the crowds assembling in the streets when meetings are being held, the police take all possible steps within their existing powers to prevent disturbances arising on such occasions and to deal with persons who behave in such a way as to provoke a breach of the peace.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Under-Secretary consider, in purely residential districts, regulating the use of loud speakers? The public can keep away from ordinary meetings, but the loud speaker penetrates into their homes and causes great nuisance.

Mr. Lloyd: The Commissioner of Police has recommended to the Bethnal Green Council that they should make by-laws dealing with this subject. In the absence of such by-laws the police have no power.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not a fact that there are powers in existence, quite apart from by-laws, for the suppression of this noise?

Mr. Lloyd: I am advised not.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not a fact that the loud speaker is used for unjustifiable slanders against people on account of their race?

OIL DUTIES (POWER ALCOHOL).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the subsidy of 8¾d. per gallon paid to the manufacturers of power alcohol for special reasons, which no longer hold good, considering the large quantity made, will still continue when the Excise duty is modified to the extent as indicated in the Finance Bill; and, if so, what will be the reduction of the amount expected to be received?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 12th May to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson).

ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that there are men serving in the Royal Navy who have married under the age of 25 years and accordingly are not entitled to marriage allowance, and whose wives and children are drawing relief from public assistance committees, he will take steps to ensure that the marriage age limit of persons serving in the various services of His Majesty may be reduced?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir. As regards the particular cases mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given in this House on 13th April last by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers).

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of those who are married have their wives and families on public assistance?

Captain Wallace: Not without notice.

UNEMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE, TYNESIDE).

Miss Ward (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Labour whether, pending

a general satisfactory settlement, and in the absence of a ruling from the umpire as to the position of unemployed men drawing holiday pay credits for race week on Tyneside, he will consult the Unemployment Assistance Board so that no unemployed man will be worse off as a result of payments due to him?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have ascertained from the Unemployment Assistance Board that they will deal with any application of this kind in the light of the circumstances of the individual case.

Miss Ward: May I have an assurance that no man will be worse off?

Mr. Brown: That is not what I have said. I said that the matter is under the consideration of the statutory authority. I will go as far as it is possible to go.

Miss Ward: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to make in regard to Friday's business?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): On Friday, 24th June, the business will be Supply, Committee, the second part of the nth Allotted Day. The Estimates for the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board will be considered.

Mr. E. Smith: Cannot this matter be reconsidered, in view of the very serious situation in which the people applying for unemployment assistance find themselves? Moreover, Friday is only a short day?

Captain Margesson: The hon. Member will realise that the subject chosen for the Debate on Friday rests with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Batey: This is a most important question. Will the Supply Day be a full day or only half a day? Last Friday was used as a Supply Day.

Captain Margesson: Only half a day.

BILLS PRESENTED.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend the provisions of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, relating to the number of judges of the Court of Appeal, the performance by such judges of the functions of judges of the High Court and the filling of vacancies among judges of the Chancery Division," presented by The Attorney-General; supported by the Solicitor-General and Captain Wallace; to be read a Second time To-morrow; and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL,

"to amend the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, so as to make it illegal to have possession of animals trained, prepared or intended for fighting or baiting, or of any weapon, instrument or appliance intended to be used for such purpose," presented by Sir Robert Gower; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir George Jones, Sir Robert Bird, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr. Groves; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Prevention and Treatment of Blindness (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.

Housing (Rural Workers) Amendment Bill, with an Amendment.

Irwell Valley Water Board Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon the West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Company and for other purposes," [West Yorkshire Gas Distribution Bill [Lords.]

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.

That they request the Commons will be pleased to give leave to Henry Strauss, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, a Member of their House, to attend in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee, appointed by this House in the present Session of Parliament, on the Prevention of Road Accidents.

WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

PREVENTION OF ROAD ACCIDENTS.

So much of the Lords Message as requests the attendance of Henry Strauss, esquire, considered.

And Mr. Strauss, in his place, having consented, leave given.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938.

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £32,502,330, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, and grants and expenses in connection with physical training and re-creation."—[Note.—£18,500,000 has been voted on account.]

3.49 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): If in the course of this Debate I refer to you, Captain Bourne, as Mr. Mayor, and I occasionally forget myself and congratulate hon. Members on the excellent record of work during the past year, or perhaps I proceed to open a new wing of this House, I hope you will show indulgence, because it is a year since I addressed this Committee and in the meantime I have spent most of my time in opening schools and in giving away prizes. My wanderings over many parts of England and Wales may enable me to report at first-hand some of the fascinating developments which are taking place in the schools of the country, and I do not think that any Minister could have a more agreeable duty.
The Estimates for 1938, are, with a single exception—that of 1921—the largest Education Estimates ever submitted to Parliament. They amount to a little over £51,000,000, making an increase of just under £1,500,000 on the Estimates for 1937. The increase is largely to be found under two heads, pensions for teachers and the National Fitness Council, which show increases, respectively, of £429,000 and £277,000, the latter, the National Fitness Council, being the first full estimate for a year. But the

bulk of the Board's expenditure is made up of grants to local authorities, whose expenditure shows an increase on elementary education of £1,800,000. Of this sum about £700,000 is accounted for by reorganisation and preparations for raising the school age, while other expenditure, including the maintenance of schools, conveyance of children and improvement in the quality of teachers, certificated or uncertificated, accounts for further increases. The second large increase in local education authorities' expenditure is for special services—a sum of £500,000. In the field of higher education, there is an increased expenditure by local education authorities of £1,000,000, spread over many items, the chief of which are technical education and secondary school buildings particularly in a number of new housing estates. In brief, the total net expenditure from the Exchequer is £51,072,000 and from the rates £47,810,000, making a total of £98,882,000. So much for mere figures.
The main theme which I am going to develop this afternoon is that consistently with the avoidance of extravagance we cannot as a nation afford to spend less than this amount, but, first of all, I should like to say a brief word about the machinery of administration. I have been impressed by the peculiarly English method which has grown up, and which could never have been planned, by which local education authorities, the teaching profession and the Board co-operate to run this great concern. I have been brought up to believe that efficiency is a good thing, but it is not the only thing, and it is of priceless value to have 300 education committees, with their keen directors in touch with local feelings and engaged in a friendly rivalry of initative, and it is equally good to have the great body of teachers imbued with a sense of their calling and their responsibility. Finally, under the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education are the Board's officials, to whom I should like to pay a very special tribute, and a devoted band of inspectors who are very little known to the outside world but who are welcomed as friends and advisers in the schools.
It was no accident that on New Year's morning I woke up to find three new Knights—the Secretary to the Association of Education Committees, Sir Percival Sharp; the Secretary to the National Union


of Teachers, Sir Frederick Mander, and the Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education, Sir Maurice Holmes. On almost every matter which I propose to discuss to-day these three bodies have at some time or other taken friendly counsel, chiefly because they are friends. I think this is a very important part of this piece of machinery. Those who think that such an organisation is a good example of laisseż faire can derive what comfort they may from it; others who see it as a good example of corporate working may equally well be satisfied. For myself I think it is common sense, and, above all, it works. Moreover, it enables me to shift responsibility on some issues where it rightly belongs—hon. Members have continually asked questions to which I can only give the reply that the matter is one for the local education authority, and on reflection I am sure they will agree that it is very right it should be so—and on others to give a strong lead where the Board as representing Parliament should be in the van.
We are at this moment half-way through a great reform in our education system, a reform which is designed to bring our schools in step with the needs of society. Such periods have occurred before, in 1870 and in 1902. Tradition, within limits, is a strong factor for good, but we believe that our education system has to be tempered by freedom so as to enable the individual to develop his own peculiar gifts, and thus be in a position to make his own contribution to the national well-being. Taking a review—and it must be a brief one—chronologically of this system, there can be no doubt that the most successful products of our present education are the nursery and infant schools. Experiment and study from Robert Owen to Rachel MacMillan have guided us. Moreover, these schools are not hampered by examinations or tests of any sort. Here is a free discipline, where children learn to find their own feet without treading on other peoples toes. I have been fascinated by all I have seen of them, and I wish there were more. There are 105 recognised nursery schools with a total accommodation of 7,685. There has been a growth of 19 per cent. during the year, but the total is admittedly still small, though, of course, many authorities make provision for children under the age of five years in what are called nursery classes.

Mr. Morgan Jones: How many of these schools have been provided by local authorities?

Mr. Lindsay: I will give the figures—about 50 per cent. by local authorities. When I investigated the reasons why certain authorities have not so far made this provision, as one would expect it has almost entirely been a question of finance. It is much better to say exactly where we are than try to gloss over the matter. The junior school is a comparative novelty and only recently has study been given to the peculiar needs and characteristics of children between the ages of seven and 11. These schools still remain too obsessed by the shadow of the examination, which lengthens the nearer the children approach the age of 11, and classes in many schools are still too large, although I foresee a steady diminution. Time and effort may well be devoted to thinking out aims and methods in accordance with the best modern practice. But it is at the post-primary stage that the problem becomes more important. Four-fifths of the children under re-organisation, will proceed to senior schools. In one phrase the blessed word "re-organisation" means a recognition of the needs of the ordinary average child. As regards the progress of reorganisation in which I know hon. Members are interested, the approximate figures are 70 per cent. completed in the towns and 30 per cent. in the countryside, but the effect of the very considerable outlay approved by the Board of £7,500,000 for 1936–37 and £9,800,000 for 1937–38, is not yet apparent. Plans for new buildings come in at the rate of £250,000 a week. I think that is a remarkable tribute to our determination to build up the best possible social services. As this progress continues, all the criticism about school buildings and the size of classes, which I could make nearly as eloquently as some of my hon. Friends opposite, weekly and monthly disappears.
Nothing has impressed me more in my visits to some 30 areas and over 150 schools during the year than the inequality of performance among various authorities. It is not for me to ascribe reasons for this fact, nor do I plead for uniformity when we have such varying conditions throughout the country. But the Board is concerned with a review of all areas and within the standards, and my Noble Friend would like to see some authorities, or rather one or two


authorities particularly, facing up more bravely to their task in order that they may be able to meet their obligations in time. We are, of course, aware that there has been a substantial increase in building costs, due to competition for building labour and materials, but that cannot account for the delay in pressing on with preparations. I am conscious of the overwhelming opinion among local education authorities and teachers on the subject, and I trust that every effort will be made throughout the country to secure the greatest possible measure of preparedness by the time of the appointed day. I cannot say more than that.
I want to say a few words about rural education. Naturally enough the countryside is less advanced, and for a variety of reasons. Let me say, however, that if I am convinced of the value of urban reorganisation, I am doubly convinced about rural reorganisation, and my Noble Friend equally shares that conviction. Changes have occurred in the countryside which preceded any talk of reorganisation. I do not think I need mention motor transport, the growing mechanisation of agriculture, the extension of electricity, the decrease in the numbers working on the land per farm, the introduction of new industries and so forth. To-day the average number in a country school is about 80. There are some 6,000 schools with not more than 100 children, and over 2,500 with not more than 40, of all ages, from 5 to 14 years. In most cases the teachers are women and by no means all certificated. In 12 of the most rural counties in England over 50 per cent. of the boys over 11 receive no instruction in gardening at all, nor many of the girls in domestic science. These are vital provisions in a new senior school. I am not unmindful of the splendid work that these little schools have done and the family atmosphere fostered in them, but they were never meant for the successive raisings of the school age, My own mother, whom I regard as the best cook in England, went to such a school, but in those days cooking and much else were learned at home. Now much of that old home lore has irrecoverably gone.
Nor must we forget the facts of agriculture itself. This is not my particular province, but I was brought up largely in the country. Have we not taken away the so-called abler boy into the grammar

school, in most cases, unless the son of a farmer, to leave the land for ever? The village looked at from the Tudor manor or the Queen Anne rectory or the weekend cottage has quite a different aspect to the village youth and worker. My own knowledge of the village, which comes from the farm and the cricket ground, leads me to think that we might take a more realist and less romantic view about village life.
I have recently returned from a rural tour across Dorset, Somerset and Devon. Can anyone doubt that those 16 senior schools in Devon are helping to create rural life, situated as they are in such places as Chagford, on Dartmoor, at North Tawton and Holsworthy, or in Dorset at Maiden Newton. The church and farmer alike, who were disposed to blame, have remained to praise. In those three Devon schools I was in each case welcomed by the local parson, who is himself chairman of managers of the new school. No less than 82 per cent. of those trained in the schools mentioned have returned to employment in their contributory villages. So much for the criticism, of which I have seen so much, about the breaking up of village life. Does anyone doubt that the three village colleges which I visited last week in Cambridgeshire are revitalising the life of that rural county, partly by the atmosphere within the school and partly by the provision of a centre for every form of rural activity within the region? It may be said that a new rural unit is thus created which by its very nature stems the drift to the towns. To those who know East Suffolk, Eye and East Reydon remain firmly in mind. At Eye they have laid out the grounds with lawns, rockeries, fruit plots and the rest. Every aspect of gardening is taught—spraying and grafting, budding and pruning. The girls have bottled fruit and vegetables and made jam and marmalade. Farmers' and farm workers' children rub shoulders in the school. Their science is based on the garden and farm, their art deals with things in their houses, their music is British folk song. Children sit down, 165 every day, to a mid-day meal with English meat, two vegetables and local eggs and milk. Can it be honestly said that that is urbanising the children? In many cases young farmers' clubs are either attached to the school or form a connecting link between the


school and the farm institute. Practically all the principles underlying farming operations can be illustrated in the school garden. The Ministry of Agriculture looks after purely vocational instruction, but the coming of the new senior school has to my knowledge awakened an entirely new interest among agricultural organisers, and I think that before long it is going to influence agricultural education in this country. In nearly every county there is some appropriate cooperation between the two committees and my Noble Friend is only too anxious to cement that co-operation in Whitehall.
The key to success is the teacher. There used to be a reluctance, so far as I can judge, on the part of many of the best qualified to take employment in rural areas. Those who have experience will perhaps bear me out in that statement. The old schools were certainly rural in situation, but not in equipment and curriculum. The better the equipment, the more likely the school is to attract the kind of teacher wanted. Special courses in rural science and gardening are being arranged both by the Board and the local authorities themselves, one of which, a very interesting one, is at Seale Hayne in Devonshire, and others, most excellent ones, in Kent, and still others in the North of England. It is my conviction that a healthy and intelligent rural population is the best way of assisting a healthy and intelligent agriculture. Those are two of the greatest needs of England at the moment. If we deny to country children the advantages that we give to the towns we are neither serving good husbandry nor helping to preserve the countryside.
Education does not exist in a vacuum, and if the rural schools must relate their work to their environment, it is no less essential to-day in the higher stages, when this country is in competition with the farmers, the skilled workers and the commercial acumen of the whole world, that our education system should be closely related to the needs of living industry. When the instruction becomes frankly vocational, as in art schools, technical and commercial schools and agricultural institutions, we have to adopt a practical test. In sheer numbers of students using these facilities there is cause for satisfaction. The number of part-time students, mainly evening students, rose last year to

a total of 1,200,000, an army of volunteers—with their teachers a great brotherhood of earning and learning—anxious to improve their equipment for their jobs. Experience shows that as we offer more facilities students rapidly fill up and are eager to take advantage. As regards buildings, however, I can only say that I wish they were worthy of the enthusiasm of the students housed in them. Owing to the statutory claims of reorganisation and raising the school age, and to the competition for building labour and material, the response from local authorities this year has not been so encouraging. There is considerable leeway to make up, and I say definitely that we cannot afford to slacken.
We cannot afford to slacken for another reason and I have some doubts as to the standpoint which industry and commerce have so far taken in relation to our system of instruction. While fully appreciative of the interest shown by some industrialists and of the services rendered by representatives of industry and commerce on advisory committees, it still remains true that technical education is something which stands apart from organised industry—I emphasise the word "organised." In some foreign countries technical education is an important and intregal factor in the industrial system. In France and Germany and in Czechoslovakia much of the technical training carried on in schools is given in the day time during working hours in close co-operation with the works. In this country the total number of part-time day students released by their employers does not exceed 30,000, and in engineering and allied trades, most important, only about 8,000.
Times have changed. All-round training can no longer be readily provided under conditions of mass production, the conveyer belt and the like. There is a constant increase in the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers, pari passu with the increasing mechanisation of industry. This to me is almost a discovery. I never realised it until this last year. Not only does increasing mechanisation demand this, but it is impossible without it. The time has come when, not merely locally, but on national lines industry should turn its attention more closely to the vital problem of recruiting and training. There is wanted something by way of a national grid of technical education which will carry a constant flow of power into in-


dustry and commerce. I hope that by a co-operative effort we can build up such a system. If we do not I am seriously apprehensive that our competitors in foreign countries will be found to have such advantages in skill and efficiency as may endanger our position as a manufacturing and commercial country.
I want now to say something about the difficult question of secondary schools. As I said in a speech last week at Bournemouth, the secondary school, to which some 11 per cent. of our elementary pupils go, has come down to us with a long tradition. It began in mediaeval times as a preparatory school for the university, and this quality it has never lost; indeed, in some respects it has reinforced it. The child who, at the age of 11, enters a secondary school, embarks on a prescribed curriculum leading to the requirements of the School Certificate; but the School Certificate has come more and more to be thought of in terms of matriculation, which is a purely university test. If he stays on beyond the age of 16, he works for the Higher Certificate, an examination which has to serve the dual function of testing the results of two years' school work, and of selecting by competition for university scholarships. Finally, if a boy is ambitious, he may find himself obliged to squeeze into his last year at school special work for intermediate or professional examinations more appropriate to a first year of the university. And added to this we find that, in practice, the prestige of a secondary school tends more and more to be measured by the number of university scholarships it has won during the year. Yet how many children do, in fact, go on to the university? How many are, in fact, forced over traditional hurdles which are designed, in part at least, for the needs of university candidates?

Mr. Cove: How many of them are from the working class?

Mr. Lindsay: I have said that 11 per cent. of elementary school leavers go to the secondary schools. Yet the percentage is by no means even over the country. In Wales, where a fine popular tradition in favour of secondary schools has existed for close on 50 years, the percentage is as high as 20 per cent.; in some areas it is as low as 7 or 8 per cent.

Yet can we say that the number of qualified pupils in Wales is three times as great as that in some other areas? It is clear that there is a different standard being used. What is the remedy for this situation? I do not think it will be solved by slogans.

Mr. Morgan Jones: The hon. Gentleman said there is a different standard. Does he mean that in Wales it is lower than in England, or vice versa?

Mr. Lindsay: I simply mean a different standard of administration. A number of the boys who, in Wales, go to what are known as secondary schools, in England go to senior schools, central schools, junior technical schools, and so forth. I do not mean a difference in the examinations standard.

Mr. Cove: There are more facilities in Wales.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not think there are. This situation will not be solved by slogans, because the problems involved are fundamental. It can be solved only by a thorough examination of, first, the methods of selection of pupils entering secondary schools, and secondly, the aim of the courses on which they are to embark. We are expecting this year a report from the Consultative Committee, which will be largely concerned with this problem. In the meantime, certain practical measures are being taken to make conditions in the schools more flexible. I will give the Committee one example. It was one of the recommendations of the Investigation into the School Certificate held in 1931 that the school certificate should no longer be associated with Matriculation. As hon. Members are aware, a school certificate is obtained by qualifying in an examination held by one of eight university examining boards, but a candidate could enter for Matriculation at the same examination, and, by obtaining five credits in certain subjects, could obtain this added qualification. I think we all welcomed that recommendation and would like to see it universally adopted. But it is a matter primarily, if not entirely, for the universities to consider. One difficulty is that, as long as employers continue to look for matriculation as an essential qualification for employment, it is difficult to bring the necessary pressure of public opinion to bear. But I can say


emphatically that we at the Board would welcome the change. We must not overestimate the problem. In fact, it affects only two groups of universities, the Northern Universities and London, and of these, the Northern Universities have, I am glad to say, adopted the reform and discontinued the practice of making a matriculation certificate possible of attainment by the School Certificate examination alone. I believe that the University of London is actively considering the possibility of a similar step, and I am sure the Committee will join with me in hoping that they may find it possible to fall in with the recommendation of 1931.
I want to say only a word or two here about the Universities, for if I said more I should be out of order. The really vital point to notice is the growing up during recent years of a vast system of State and local education authority scholarships and exhibitions. It is almost unique in its size and effects. But observe the results. Every year some 360 State scholarships are awarded and there are some 1,700 local education authority awards. In this way the public authorities are to a large extent made responsible for the selection of the clientele of the Universities. This is not yet fully recognised throughout the country. Here I should like to mention a matter which may have caused some concern to some hon. Members. I was exceedingly interested to read in the "Times" of 16th June an article by Sir William Beveridge in which he quoted a statement by Mr. Glass and Professor Gray that the elementary schools provide only 27 per cent. of the male undergraduates at all Universities, only 12 per cent, at Oxford, and 13 per cent. at Cambridge. Those figures are, I am glad to say, very remote from actuality. The true figures are 42 per cent. at all universities, 22 per cent. at Oxford and 25 per cent. at Cambridge. I notice that my friend Mrs. Parker, in her presidential speech at Margate, suggested that there is less chance to-day for the children of working-class parents to climb the educational ladder. I am glad to say that it is not so. The numbers of public elementary scholars leaving for secondary schools has risen from 71,000 to 78,000 during a period when the school population has been falling. The total percentage of such children in grant-aided

secondary schools has risen from 76 per. cent. to 81 per cent. As regards University scholarships, so far from a reduction there has been an increase of 120 State scholarships during the last two years, of which 56 have been won by pupils from graint-aided schools.

Mr. A. Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give particulars as to the number of children who are not from elementary schools and the number from elementary schools, so as to make it possible to compare the 42 per cent.?

Mr. Lindsay: 42 per cent. of all the children who go to the Universities come from elementary schools. The others come from a great variety of schools.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman was talking about 42 per cent. of all the undergraduates in the Universities coming from elementary schools. What is the number of elementary school children as compared with the other schools from which the 58 per cent. come?

Mr. Lindsay: I should require notice of that question. I am not trying to make any clever point. All I am saying is that the figures mentioned in the "Times" article are so remote from actuality that I dare to correct them. If the hon. Member wishes to know the number of schools from which the others come, I think I can look it up before I reply later and give him the exact figures then. As to the university scholarships, Mrs. Parker's figures are right, although the conclusions are wrong; that is, they are wrong in the sense that there has been no reduction in the number of State scholarships. With regard to the scholarships provided by the local education authorities, there is no arbitrary limit imposed. Generally speaking, such awards depend upon the number of pupils who are capable and who wish to go to universities. It is a fact that in certain districts such as Birmingham and Middlesex where prospects of employment have been particularly good, the size of the sixth forms has considerably decreased. Nor do I think that university education in vacuo quite irrespective of subsequent careers is necessarily a desirable thing. I say that with some thought of other countries. I remember that when I was in Egypt, I saw great masses of students and in talking to the principal, I said, "What


are they going to do?" He said, "That is one of the saddest things—we do not know. At least 25 per cent. of them, it seems to me, are going to work as ordinary labourers." I am not concerned with denying to anybody the advantages of a university education, which I think can be got extra-murally and in a hundred different ways, but when the public funds are paying for full-time courses, I say that there is no terrific virtue in a university education in vacuo. Most of the people who go to the universities go for the specific purpose of becoming teachers, doctors, of entering the church, or entering a variety of professions—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Civil Service"]—the Civil Service very largely; and I have no objection to anybody going to a university, but when the State pays, there is a definite obligation. I cannot explain why the numbers are going down, but as far as I know, no local education authorities have changed their policy in this respect.

Mr. Cove: The advantage is with the fee-payer all the time.

Mr. Lindsay: There has been no diminution as far as scholarships are concerned. If an advantage falls to a certain number of people, I am not responsible for it at the moment. All I can say is that the number of scholarships has not decreased, but has increased. Beyond this, I do not want to say much about the position of scholarships and exhibitions to universities. But it does give me an opportunity of saying one word about a most important piece of work which has been carried out by the Secondary Schools Examinations Council this winter. Some Members of the Committee may be aware that from time to time investigations are carried out by this council with a view to ascertaining and reporting on the arrangements made by universities for the School and Higher School Certificates. This year an investigation of this sort has been made into the Higher School Certificate, and one of the main problems the council has had to consider is, how far the Higher Certificate examination can successfully serve the dual purpose of testing the ordinary school work of pupils and, on the other hand, selecting suitable pupils for university scholarships and exhibitions awarded by the State and local education authorities.
An investigation of this sort involves an immense amount of labour and visits

are necessary to all the examining centres. We at the Board are indebted to the council, and particularly to its chairman, Sir Cyril Norwood, of whose recent honour we were all glad to hear, for their work in this matter. My own feeling is that the existing system, with all its variations, may be successful in choosing candidates with the best brains, but any selection based entirely on success in a written examination is open to the criticism that it selects brains and nothing else. We want at the university those will will play a leading part in whatever occupation they take up as citizens of the State. I do feel that it is important that, in assisting young people from public funds to obtain a university education, too much emphasis cannot be placed on the importance of choosing them on promise rather than performance in a written examination. We are interested in this Committee in seeing that the expenditure of public money gives us value in national leadership and in securing that the cream of ability comes to the top.
I turn from the question of examinations to the kindred questions of holidays, physical education and nutrition. May I begin by a reference to the question of holidays, which has been very much before the public lately? In April last the Committee on Holidays with Pay issued its report. One of its recommendations was that education authorities should endeavour to arrange school holidays so that they would fit in with industrial holidays. The Board lost no time in calling a meeting of local education authorities and teachers with officers of the Board which met on 25th May. At that meeting it was made clear that the first step lay with industry, that it was for industry to make its proposals for a spread-over of holidays and that it would then be for education to adjust its arrangements accordingly. In the first place, it would be necessary to ensure that as far as possible school holidays coincided with local industrial holidays. This would present no difficulty in cases where industry to a large extent closed down, but it was recognised that when local industrial holidays were spread over a considerable period it would not be possible to make the school holidays coincide with them. In such cases it was recommended that absence from school during an industrial holiday should be a reasonable excuse


for non-attendance at school. I think it very remarkable that the conference unanimously came to that conclusion.
The second point was that of removing examinations outside the holiday period. This problem has been considered also by the Secondary School Examinations Council and I think it can already be said that there is every prospect of the universities agreeing to make suitable modifications in the dates of the School and Higher School Certificate Examinations. I have been impressed by the readiness and even the enthusiasm of all concerned, whether from the universities, or from the local authorities, or from the teachers, to do all they can to meet the problems which are incidental to this great social cause, and as far as we are concerned I do not see that anything stands in its way.
The question of holidays is linked up with that of general health and such matters as the provision of gymnasia, swimming pools, physical training organisers and the rest.

Mr. Gallacher: And good food.

Mr. Lindsay: There is also, of course, the provision of school dental facilities, regular medical inspection and so forth, and all these are inseparable from the question of nutrition and the full and generous use of the powers to supply milk and meals free where there is necessity and at a small cost in other cases, as I have already instanced in the senior schools. I am informed that in the ordinary schools in the countryside the cost of these meals works out at about 2½d. to 3d. per child per day. There is no differentiation between the children who receive assistance in this way and the others. They all sit down together.

Mr. Gallacher: What is the average cost of a meal in a public school?

Mr. Lindsay: I have no idea. I am dealing here only with the public system of education. An estimated increase of £500,000 by local education authorities under the heading of Special Services reveals £150,000 increase on provision of meals and £350,000 in respect of school medical services.

Viscountess Astor: It ought to be the other way round.

Mr. Lindsay: Those are the figures in any case and they, of course, include

open-air schools, nursery schools and play centres, physical training organisers and many other items in the special services. The best proof of the value of this expenditure is to be seen in the heights and weights of children compared even with 10 years ago, and in the increased cooperation of parents. There is no one of experience who does not admit that the school medical service has revolutionised child life in a quarter of a century. There has naturally been criticism. There has been for example some criticism of the clinical method recommended by the board for the assessment of the nutrition of school children. The hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Ridley) has discussed this matter with me, and I agree with many of the criticisms which he and others make. There are admittedly inconsistencies between the returns for similar areas, but I think hon. Members opposite should realise the proportions of the subject before indulging in these criticisms.
There are, as I say, inconsistencies between the returns for similar areas, showing that different standards have been adopted by school medical officers, but as a method of assessing the general condition and wellbeing of the child, the returns produce a valuable picture for the country as a whole. We should all like to find some index which would accurately measure malnutrition. That may seem a rather superficial remark, but it is not easy when you are dealing with 5,000,000 children to arrive at a proper method of assessment, unless you propose to give school meals to all on a contributory basis, and if you did that you would have to be prepared for the appropriate expenditure. I am sure no one would desire such an index more than the Advisory Committee on Nutrition appointed by the Minister of Health. Yet they state that our own method which is being used at the moment, is the most promising. Various alternatives have been suggested which I, as a layman, have examined, and which experts have long ago worked out, but they all have serious limitations. They do not apply the test which we require, and we are therefore bound to conclude that the clinical method based on the opinion of an experienced physician is the best at present open to us. I do not say that we shall not discover a better, but at present it is the best available, and if applied


with skill, and most of all with understanding, it discovers the great majority of children whose nutrition is defective.
The returns for 1937 show an increase in the percentage of children with excellent nutrition and a slight fall from 0.7 per cent. to 0.6 per cent. in the percentage with bad nutrition. Deficiencies in diet still exist, sometimes in quanitity and sometimes in quality, but as every one knows there are other causes of sub-normal nutrition such as heredity, want of sleep, bad environment and effects of illness or infectious disease. The past year has shown an increase from 248 to 264 in the number of local education authorities who provide free solid meals or milk for necessitous undernourished children. Summaries of the provision made during the year ended 31st March, 1938, are not yet available. Here I should like to apologise to hon. Members. I promised last year that I would endeavour to see that the Board's report was ready before this Debate took place. I am sorry that the returns from the local authorities do not come in sufficiently early to enable this to be done. I went to some trouble to see how far the matter could be expedited, but I find that it means either changing the whole method of returns by local authorities, or else having this Debate at a later period in the Session.

Mr. Cove: How much later?

Mr. Lindsay: Not much later, because the report is now in proof. As I say, summaries of the provision made during the year ended 31st March, 1938, are not available but the figures for 1936–37 show that as compared with the returns for 1935–36, which I gave a year ago, the number of children receiving free solid meals or milk has increased from 479,000 to 535,000 and the number of free meals provided has increased from 86,500,000 to 100,000,000. It is practically certain that these figures have again increased in 1937–38 but we cannot yet say by how much.
I am also glad to notice that there has been a steady increase since the issue of Circular 1445, just over two years ago, in everything appertaining to physical education. Both the number of authorities employing physical training organisers and the number of the organisers themselves have doubled in the last 2½ years. No fewer than 288 gymnasia and four new

swimming baths have also been provided for elementary schools, while 300 sites for new playing fields have been acquired, 100 of which serve more than one school and 700 sites have been extended.

Mr. Cove: Under the Physical Training Act?

Mr. Lindsay: No, this has nothing to do with the Act. All this has been done during the last two and a-half years and has been done for the children of our elementary schools and that gives me more personal satisfaction than any other announcement I have made in this speech. Also, in our secondary schools 1,600 acres of additional playing fields, 214 gymnasia and 18 swimming baths, nine of them open air, have been approved, and, I am glad to add, 36 new gymnasia in our technical schools—a provision which was not made in the past. Added then to a progressive nutrition policy there is a system now prevailing which will be universal when reorganisation is completed, of physical education. I think that is the best phrase to apply to such a system. It is a system of physical exercises woven into a system of games and so forth. I do not think that there is any country with a better system of the kind. On a recent visit here the German Sports Leader declared that it was far better than anything in his own country. It will be of universal application and is, I believe, on a thoroughly sound basis.
It was in order to ensure that the effect of this excellent work should not be lost through lack of interest and lack of facilities when the children came to leave school that the Physical Training and Recreation Act was placed on the Statute Book. The National Fitness Council under the personal inspiration of Lord Aberdare—whose brilliant and classic performance helped this House and the other place to defeat the M.C.C. last week—has now got well under way. It has roused interest throughout the country by propaganda, through posters and films and by a sympathetic response from the national and local Press and we hope that to these agencies will soon be added wireless. As regards creating and adding to the necessary facilities one of the main problems is to ensure a supply of trained leaders, and I think the Committee are aware that a site has been acquired for the National College for the training of


such leaders and plans are now prepared. Naturally such a construction must take time and, meantime, additional leaders are being trained by means of a variety of courses with the valuable help of the Central Council for Recreative Training. At the same time the Board have offered 75 per cent. grant towards the salary of full-time instructor leaders in order to encourage men and women to take up this work as a full-time profession. One of the difficulties of the past has been that men could undertake this work only in the evening.
As regards the financing of new schemes for providing physical training facilities, the Grants Committee have now evolved a procedure and policy based on careful principles. This is a new problem but notwithstanding the relatively short period during which it has been possible to consider local applications for capital grants, 466 applications have been received involving a total expenditure of nearly £3,000,000. Grants have been recommended and approved by the Board to the value of £271,000, and by the end of July should be increased by another £200,000. Of the total estimate of £2,000,000, one-fourth will have been spent, and in addition a sum of £50,000 has been placed at the disposal of the National Playing Fields Association, who deal with all schemes for new playing fields. A sum of £200,000 has been put at the disposal of the University Grants Committee, and every university is now preparing a carefully planned scheme to deal with this hitherto neglected subject. May I say, in parenthesis, that most of the people at universities, certainly outside Oxford and Cambridge, are poor students.

Sir Edward Grigg: Is the money allocated to the National Playing Fields Association for them to control and allocate again?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes. They are the expert authorities, and we are using their machinery.

Sir E. Grigg: But the decision is with the Board?

Mr. Lindsay: The final decision on all grants is with the Board.

Mr. Tomlinson: I take it that when the hon. Gentleman was speaking about poor

students at the other universities, he was speaking in an economic sense?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes. The wide variety of physical and recreative proposals which are being assisted include community centres, swimming baths, boys' and girls' clubs, youth hostels, and camping sites. What is interesting also is that many quite new enterprises, comprising great centres for athletic pursuits, are now being suggested. The various committees have got to work and have discovered that in one town, for instance, it would be better to provide a centre for a great variety of athletic pursuits. As an interesting example of encouragement to a single sport. it may be observed that a national organiser has been appointed in connection with rowing, a fine and healthy exercise traditionally rather the prerogative of the few, and that assistance has already been offered to a number of working men's rowing clubs. I could give other examples, but I take rowing, because it is one of the less known sports.
It would appear from questions that have been addressed to me from time to time that there is an impression in some quarters that the machinery of the Physical Training Act ignores the local education authorities. That is not so. The powers of authorities were greatly widened by the Act, and it is true to say that the movement can never attain the full measure of success which we all desire unless the authorities both exercise those widened powers and also co-operate whole-heartedly with the area committees which have been set up.
I have just spoken of the new interest in health and physical education. This movement has frequently demanded the presence of my Noble Friend and myself at great festivals of youth and displays all over the country, but as illustrating the rich variety of interests which lie on the fringe of formal education to-day, I have been interested to attend musical festivals, art exhibitions, camping exhibitions, child guidance clinics, that unique exhibition of the Bethnal Green Men's Institute, which stands almost by itself in London and to which I went with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, and a host of other ceremonies. I might particularly mention the newly inaugurated teachers' course arranged through my friend Mr. Granville Barker at the British Institute in Paris, at Easter, with the


warm and generous co-operation of the French Government. It would be out of place to mention the work of the British Council, on which we have a liaison officer, but I would like to say that we at the Board value greatly its work. The English language must always be the backbone of the curriculum in our schools, and it is more and more prized abroad, as the Council is showing us, not only as a medium of commerce, but also as an expression of the English way of life. Thousands of our children are now paying visits to the Continent each year. The Fitness Council have recently sent some of our foremost exponents of physical training to the Continent, while we have been honoured by the highly successful visit of those gifted Swedish gymnasts. No better ambassadors of good will can exist than our own children and the best exponents of British music, literature, and games.
I believe that in the present temper of the world these contributions to understanding among the peoples are wholly to the good, and we would wish to multiply them as a contribution to a positive peace policy. I mention these things at the end to show that the Board is not only concerned with curricula and time-tables, nor only with teeth, towels, and milk, but also with those many manifestations of the human spirit which we in this country sometimes shyly call culture. How important this is becomes evident when we regard the many aspects of adult education to-day. I referred last year to some of those activities, and I hope in the coming year that some simple machinery may be devised for giving more direction and leadership in the broader field of adult activities.
It is difficult to estimate the results of education by a tape measure, but remember the imponderables. You cannot, in my view, teach tolerance, kindness, vitality, leadership, citizenship, or appreciation of beauty, as such, but a school can be the sort of place which embodies and encourages those things in its architecture and above all in the spirit of its teachers. I believe that there are British ideals in education. Since the Renaissance there has been no such upheaval in thought, no such revaluation of values, as in the century upon which we have entered. The waves of Continental ideas are beating against this ancient rock, and tradition, as before, has

compelled us to examine them with an insular eye, but freedom bids us proclaim that we are embarked on a great adventure, the adventure of discovering a democracy. I think it is to our schools that we must look to play their part in that adventure, and all that they seem to need is the guiding light.

4.54 P.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made a comprehensive and attractive survey of the subject, which think indicates the great affection that he has had for many years for the actual topics over which he is now called upon to preside. I shall not follow him in a general survey of the whole educational field, but I must deal with most of the salient features which he has brought to our attention. One or two subjects with which he dealt I will leave to my hon. Friends, as we are debating under a rather strict limitation of time. I was a little surprised, because I thought the Parliamentary Secretary would have said something about the Act of 1936 and the progress that was being made in attempts to deal with the problem of beneficial exemptions and attempts to introduce some sort of common standard among the local authorities of the country; but my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and, I think, a number of other hon. Friends of mine on this side of the Committee will put questions on that subject, and I hope the hon. Member will be prepared to deal with them at the end of the day.
The hon. Gentleman talked about reorganisation and told us that there are still in the urban areas one-third of the children over 11 in unorganised school work departments, and in the rural areas two-thirds of them. But what rather disturbed me more than that were certain observations which the Parliamentary Secretary made upon this subject in a speech which he delivered at Bournemouth recently. It is clear to me, if I may make one criticism of his speech, that a good deal of it was full of rather unexceptionable generalisations with which we all agree, but as a matter of fact it appeared to me that those generalisations do mark, on this question of reorganisation, a very sharp divergence of policy between my hon. Friends and those who sit on the Government side


of the Committee. Reorganisation is not merely a matter of shifting children about from one department to another. Our policy has been summed up in that phrase, to which the Parliamentary Secretary took objection at Bournemouth, "Secondary education for all." He described it as a nostrum and said, "What do we gain if we put all children into so-called secondary schools?" The hon. Gentleman has not in the least understood what that phrase means. We do not wish to put all children into secondary schools, but what we say is that at the age of 11 children should go to schools of different types, some to secondary schools, some to senior schools, some to central schools, but all to schools of the same educational quality.
That was, in fact, the doctrine of the Hadow Report, upon which this whole scheme of reorganisation is based. But that is not being done. It is still the case that the expenditure per head on children in secondary schools is still about twice as high as it is on children in senior schools, and the gap is not diminishing under the present Administration. The fact is that the present Administration regard the purpose of reorganisation as an improvement in the later stages of elementary education, and that is all. Our phrase, "Secondary education for all," means the secondary standard of education for all, whereas the present Administration is settling down into a system, an idea, of reorganisation which means two standards—one standard for the children of the secondary schools and a cheaper standard for the 89 per cent. of the children who, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, go to the senior schools.
Certain remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary made to-day lead me to the conclusion that he has not really thought out the implications of the attitude which he took in his speech at Bournemouth. On that occasion he spoke, as he has again to-day, of securing a more satisfactory system of selecting pupils for the secondary schools. The most critical year in the life of the great mass of the people is the age of 11, when they pass an examination which decides whether they shall go forward to the cheaper education or to the more expensive education with all the opportunities

in life which the latter education brings. I was struck this morning by a letter in the "Times" by a gentleman who I did not know was interested in this subject, the headmaster of King's College, Taunton, who put in a sentence what we mean by "secondary education for all":
The aim of education should not be to pigeon-hole people at the age of 12, but to give every one the longest possible chance of finding and developing his abilities.
That can be done only when at the age of 11 all can go to schools where the same standards of equipment, staffing, amenities and teaching give all an equal opportunity in life. That is the meaning of our phrase.
I wish to lead up to some observations which the Parliamentary Secretary mace about the matriculation examination. In order to do that I wish to ask him what has been the result of the report upon home work, which we discussed fully in the last Debate of the Education Estimates because it had been published about a week before. That report made it clear that this problem of excessive homework is especially the curse of secondary schools, and it recommended that children between 11 and 14 should do only one hour a day, children between 14 and 16, 1½ hours, and that they should do homework for only four or five days in the week. When the report was discussed I said that all those recommendations would prove to be completely futile, and I ask for information because I am sure that it will show that my prophecy was correct. They are bound to be futile because of the problem to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred and as regards which I should like the Board of Education to take pore positive action. They are futile because we have reached a position in secondary education in which the school certificate examination and the matriculation examination have become one and the same.
We now have the preposterous situation in which the bulk of the children in our secondary schools are being prepared to try to pass at 16 a school certificate examination which shall be the same thing as the matriculation examination which is intended for children who will enter the university at the age of 18. In these circumstances, of course, there is excessive homework, and any attempt to prevent it will be defeated by the teachers, the parents and the children themselves. I suggested last year that the universities


should hold their own examination for matriculation and should leave the school certificate examination free for its original purpose, that is, to test, without cramming, the education which the average child at 16 has been able to reach while pursuing his leisure, hobbies, school activities and recreation and having a little time to think for himself, which the secondary school product, although he passes the examinations, never learns to do.
I said last year that this problem had resolved itself to one obstacle only, that is, the University of London. The Parliamentary Secretary has practically repeated what I said. He stated that there were two groups of universities which had the solution of this problem in their hands—the northern group and the University of London. The northern group has made the separation, but the University of London has not taken that step. I have come to the conclusion that it is now time, especially after the strong observations which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made, for the Government to take some action. The hon. Gentleman cannot, after making such observations, follow them up by simply saying that this is a matter entirely for universities to settle for themselves. It is not so. These universities are receiving public grants. The University of London would have to close its doors if it depended on its own fees, and it is not entitled to say that its policy concerns itself alone and that it does not need to consider its effect on other universities and on secondary education.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: When has the University of London said that?

Mr. Lees-Smith: It said it in correspondence which the hon. Member himself sent to the Press. It does not make the change and it takes the ground that it is a matter for the university itself to settle. I say it is no longer a matter for the university to settle.

Sir E. Graham-Little: I must contradict that statement. I followed the correspondence and took part in it, and I cannot remember any such statement being made.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I know that the question has been considered by the University of London for years. The fact is that the university is acting as a law unto itself and is refusing to take a step which is

now being urged by the northern universities and by every body of educational opinion in the country. In these circumstances the time has arrived when the Board of Education should take the responsibility of exercising its influence and bringing to a head the development which a single university has delayed far too long.
The Parliamentary Secretary devoted a large part of his speech to the physical training scheme. I have followed it rather closely and I have come to the conclusion that the Physical Training Act is proving to be a disappointment. There is a marked contrast between the comparative lack of interest which it creates now and the boosting and propaganda in which Ministers indulged before it was introduced. When the Act was being passed I pointed out what I thought was the chief peril in its structure. I was sorry that I could not make the President of the Board of Education see that the chief impediment in the Act was that it was dependent for its administration mainly upon voluntary organisations which were largely responsible for such physical training activities as were already operating in the country. The danger is that these voluntary organisations have confined themselves mainly to the clerical and the black-coated class of workers. They have scarcely penetrated into the factory, mill and mining populations who are mostly in need of an improvement in their physical standards. As I pointed out at the time, the only method of avoiding the peril of just giving a little more in the various directions which voluntary organisations were already covering was carefully to think out in advance what were the special methods of physical training on which we were going to concentrate instead of allowing the money to be spilt in all manner of different directions. That was not done before the Act was passed.
How this small sum of money was to be spent was not thought out beforehand, and we were told it was to be left to the National Fitness Council, of which the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken in very high terms. I do not think this council is the right body for the purpose. It consists of well-meaning pugilists, weight lifters, sloggers, beauty queens and sprinters, but these magnificent physical specimens are not the people who have devoted a very large part of their lives to


thinking about the problem of the mill girl who has a tendency to anaemia and to whom this Act ought to be specially directed. The result of this system is that the council has followed the line of least resistance. Voluntary organisations were providing a certain number of playing fields and assistance has been given in that direction. A local authority which was thinking of providing a new swimming bath sometime said, "Let us apply to the Fitness Council for a grant and do it now."
I am convinced that by this method of spending the money there will be finally no great net addition to the facilities which would have been provided sooner or later from other sources if this Act had not been passed. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke, for example, of this vaguely benevolent expenditure whenever any respectable body comes along and asks for assistance. People are asking, and I ask, why £200,000 should be given to the universities. We have not a limitless amount of money to spend—only £2,000,000. That is an average of only £3,000 for each of our constituencies, and yet one-tenth of the whole sum is to go to the universities. It is very pleasant for the universities to have more gymnasiums, but if we compare their needs with those of the great mining, mill and factory populations, no one who has been to a university will say that their need for physical training and recreation is one of the most urgent that ought to be presented to this House. That is an example of the way in which this money is being benevolently slopped around as if the Fitness Council were a kind of well-endowed charitable society.
I come back to the warning I gave last year, that although we shall spend a large amount of money on what are all good objects, we shall not produce much addition to what would otherwise have been brought about by other agencies. I believe it would have been better to have thought out what we wanted to spend money upon and to concentrate upon it. It would have been better to concentrate upon physical education as distinct from physical recreation, leaving other agencies to provide physical recreation as the result of the propaganda and stimulus which organisers of physical education would have provided in every area.
Next I wish to refer to the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks about the problem of nutrition, and his defence of the Board's methods of discovering children whose nutrition is inadequate. Nutrition is one of the most important subjects in the sphere of education which we have discussed for the last year or two, and one of the large developments in social advance in the last five years has been the discovery by the medical profession of this doctrine of nutrition. They are making it clear that the most important element of all in the health of a child, and the subsequent health of the man—more important than anything else—is the actual physical intake of food, of the right kind of food, to be transformed into the bones and muscles and tissues out of which our bodies are made. Amenities and everything else are quite secondary to the right kind of food inside our bodies.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that children would be given food free whenever necessary, and, broadly, the claim was that no child would be allowed to suffer from malnutrition. He defended the method by which the Board recommends the selection of the children, the method of clinical assessment. I believe that it will have to be abandoned, because it is completely contrary to modern scientific methods. The method of clinical assessment is that by which the school medical officer, by personal observation, picks out a child as suffering from malnutrition—either the school medical officer, or the teacher, or the school nurse, or the school attendance officer or anyone else interested. We on this side have held a different view for a long time, and I see that we are now supported in our view by the statements of Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins. I believe he is the greatest authority in this country on nutrition—he was made President of the Royal Society on account of his services in connection with nutrition—and he says plainly that children may suffer from a high degree of malnutrition before the outward signs become observable by a teacher or a school medical officer.
We on these benches have for some time been recommending an alternative method for which we now have the support of the medical profession. Under that alternative method you calculate the actual quantity of calories, phosphates,


proteins, fats and so on which are required for the proper development of a child, according to the age of the child, and you calculate from the family budget which the Minister of Labour is preparing the cost of the food which contains the proper quantity of these nutrients, and you calculate what is the lowest income on which families can afford to buy these foods. The doctrine to which we come is that in that way you can tell, broadly, the minimum income below which sufficient food to prevent malnutrition cannot be provided. What we are now being recommended is very simple—that we should feed all the children who come from families below that level of income, because if, as may happen, some are not under-nourished, that is only because their mothers are living on bread and margarine and tea.
I do not believe the Board of Education will be able very much longer to maintain its position in this matter. More and more is expert opinion moving against it, and what is most striking is the extraordinary disparity in the results arrived at by the Board of Education methods and by the methods suggested by medical officers who are advocates of nutrition. The Board of Education tell us that by the clinical assessment method they got the result, for the year 1036, that 10.5 per cent. of children are slightly subnormal, and only 0.7 per cent. are bad—fewer than 1 in 100 are bad. Compare with that the results achieved by the alternative methods. The British Medical Association's conclusion is that 30 per cent. of the children come from families where they are bound to be suffering from malnutrition, and Sir John Orr's conclusion is that 50 per cent. come from those families. Look at the discrepancy. On the one side less than 1 in 100, and on the other side from 30 to 50 per cent.
What is the explanation? To me the explanation is clear. The school medical officer has to choose which of the children are abnormal. What is his standard? His standard is the average physique of the children in the school in the area. He takes the average as the normal, and if that is done it can be worked out in advance that about 10 per cent. will be slightly below the normal and 1 in 100 very much below. That is all that that method leads to. What the British Medical Association and Sir John

Orr are really showing is that the average child in these schools is under-nourished, and that therefore the figures of 10 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. represent only those who are abnormally undernourished. This is the great controversy on which the lives and the health of millions of children will turn, and I say that in that controversy the verdict is going against the Board of Education.
I believe that by far the most exhaustive discussion of this subject which has been presented in the last 12 months was on the occasion of a paper read to the Royal Statistical Society in November last by Mr. Huys Jones as a result of the researches of the medical department of the Liverpool Education Committee. They were researches undertaken in a great number of schools and in which eight doctors took part. It was followed by a most exhaustive discussion by very great authorities on this problem. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, for many years the Board of Education has depended in this matter upon the Tuxford's Index—if a child of a certain age is above a certain weight and a certain height then it is all right, and if it is below then it is under-nourished. It is merely a mechanical process. The children themselves could carry out their own assessment of under-nourishment. A child of 10 could do it for the whole school.
In this inquiry it was said that if two doctors agree about the condition of a child it is a presumption that they are more likely to be correct than if they disagreed. What did they find? They found that as a test Tuxford's Index gave a more accurate result than the clinical assessment by the doctors. The doctors more often agreed with Tuxford's Index than with each other. They pointed out the reason—that usually doctors judge by the standards to which they are accustomed. They pointed out that if a doctor first goes to a poor school and then to a school where the children are better off his standard is set by the poor school, and he finds very few undernourished among the better-off children. If he visits the schools the other way round the results are entirely different. Until the Board of Education have some answer to this paper they cannot just calmly go on with their present methods. I will read the conclusion to which those in charge of this inquiry came:


One may venture to claim that the method of assessing nutrition at present followed by school medical officers, under the direction of the Board of Education, is unreliable. The results it gives are of doubtful value, the conclusions to which they point are insecurely founded, and they are giving the impression of effective action without the reality.
Then there was a long discussion, and at the end the writer of the paper summed up the discussion in this way—which is exactly the policy which we on this side have been trying to impress upon the Government:
The Board has advanced to saying that any symptoms will do, but since even these are difficult to determine with precision, one may sometimes wonder whether it would not be wise to give up the choice of such a will-of-the-wisp as the state of nutrition and consider other approaches to the problem; for example, free meals, or milk, or both, to be made available for all children from families where the per capita income falls below a certain level.
So we have the result that this scientific inquiry comes to exactly the same advice as hon. Members on these benches, where the fund of educational experience is vast, have been giving in this House for the last 20 years.

5.30 p.m.

Major Whiteley: I cannot help feeling a certain amount of regret that the time allotted for this Debate is so short and that the notice given that this day was to be allotted for an educational discussion was not very long. The effect was to make it difficult for hon. Members to be present or fully to consider such points as they might wish to bring forward. It is rather remarkable that so little controversial is the subject of education in these days that it is not even allotted a whole day for discussion. It shows, at any rate, that there must be a very considerable measure of agreement, and that education is far less a matter of party controversy than it used to be in the great days of 1902 and onwards. Nevertheless, I wish that a little more time could have been available, as I am afraid some hon. Members will not have an opportunity of giving their opinion.
I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his graceful apology for not being able to produce the report subsequent to that for the year 1936. That is a very interesting report, entitled "Education in 1936," but most of the

figures which it gives are up to 31st March, 1936. That is no less than two years ago; it was, in fact, published in September of 1937, and much of its information is completely out of date. This is a particularly important Debate, in view of the approaching raising of the school-leaving age. It is more than 13 years since the publication of the Hadow Report, of which, of course, the raising of the school-leaving age was an essential feature, which, in turn, depended for its success very largely on the progress of reorganisation.
In some cases, notably in rural areas, reorganisation is essential to the success of the raising of the school-leaving age. As we have been told, it is an undoubted fact that a large proportion of rural authorities are not prepared with their schemes of reorganisation, and it seems a very doubtful benefit to retain boys over 14 at small village schools. It is a matter for doubt whether in the last year of their education they are deriving very much benefit at the moment, although I think no one would deny that, with very difficult premises and small schools, wonderful results are achieved by village schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. I suggest that we are trying the teachers rather too hard if we expect them to deal with small schools covering a full range of scholars from five to 15 years of age, and still to continue to make a success of them.
Many problems have been raised by this urgent matter of reorganisation. The question is whether they have been sufficiently overcome to enable the school-leaving age to be satisfactorily raised at the appointed date, 1st September, 1939. My own opinion is a somewhat doubting affirmative, In common with anyone else who is interested in this subject of education, I would very deeply regret any suggestion that the date of the school-leaving age should be postponed, but it would be unwise to close our eyes to the fact that we are encountering difficulties, the major one of which is this question of reorganisation, which depends not entirely but very largely on the provision of suitable schools. Every educational authority, perhaps with varying intensity, is doing its best to push ahead with the preparations for these senior schools, in readiness for the appointed day, but the result of this pressure has not been entirely satisfactory. It has had a bad


effect in some departments of education, and it has also had an effect wider than a purely educational one.
As the Committee know, under the Act of 1936 the managers of non-provided schools, or those who wish to provide voluntary schools, may receive a grant up to 75 per cent., and above 50 per cent. from the local authority, provided that they produced their proposals to the local authority by the end of February this year. In special circumstances the period could be extended to 1st September—or rather to 31st August. In order to get that 75 per cent. grant, those schools have to be finished by 1st September, 1940, one year after the appointed date. That is the first class of public elementary schools affected by grants directed towards the speeding up of reorganisation. The second class is concerned with council schools. Under Circular 1444, councils should receive in respect of these schools a grant of 50 per cent., provided that they were contractually committed, by 31st December, 1940.
The original intention, expressed in Circular 1444, was that this period should be one of about three years, but subsequently to that, a further circular, 1456, was issued which decided finally that it would be necessary to go on with this grant to the end of 1940. Circular 1456 says:
The position has, however, been materially altered since January, 1936, when Circular 1444 was issued"—
(which suggested that three years was a sufficent time for grant)
by the strain upon the resources of the country in building labour and in materials, resulting from the great increase in building for both public and private purposes. Representations have been made to the Board that in these circumstances authorities are finding difficulty in carrying out their building programmes at the rate originally expected, and that owing to the rise in the prices of materials they may be faced with an unanticipated increase of expenditure.
Those conditions seem to me to apply very much at this moment. They certainly have not been substantially altered since Circular 1456 was issued, almost exactly a year ago. There is still a very great strain on the building trade and upon the architectural staffs of local authorities and, indeed, on their finances. We all know that local expenditure is tending to increase in many directions and

that councils are becoming very seriously perturbed at the increase of this expenditure. They are bound to consider the welfare of their ratepayers, and the result is that they concentrate on those projects which can be carried out with less expense to the ratepayer now than if left to some future date. That was the object of the Circulars and of the Act of 1936.
In view of the fact that their grant period finishes first, voluntary schools must take precedence. After that period finishes, the county schools can be dealt with up to the end of 1940. When that process is finished, and when the wants of both classes of school are dealt with, perhaps we shall be able to find money for other projects such as secondary schools and technical schools, and not only educational projects but such things as highways, mental institutions and so on. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the proposals for the building of technical schools recently had not come up to expectations. It is only natural. Councils are being forced to concentrate upon elementary education, and something has had to suffer. What has suffered is secondary and technical education and other forms of local activity. The question is, What is the remedy to be? It might be met by a postponement of the appointed date of the raising of the school-leaving age, although, as I have already said, I would regard this as a very great misfortune, but some of those who are friends of education have suggested that that might be advisable. I saw in the paper called "Education" about a fortnight ago the suggestion that the date might be postponed in certain areas but not universally.
I hope that even that modification will not be necessary. If a postponement becomes necessary, I hope it might be considered as a good reason for reopening the policy of exemption. Should such a postponement be necessary it would be impossible to refuse to discuss again the policy upon which exemptions were decided, because it would affect the whole position. There are, of course, other steps which can be taken. This is a very important matter for local authorities. The first and obvious step is to extend, not the period before the appointed day, but the period during which the grants are available. I see very little objection to a further extension. Circular 1456 has already made one extension in the period


of the 50 per cent. grant to local authorities and I can see very little reason why there should not be a further extension in order to spread out the high pressure under which local authorities are at present labouring. I suggest that an extension of two years would be very useful and helpful to local education authorities. If it is considered impossible to open the matter now very likely it will be decided to open it in the future, because, in fact and in practice, a large number of local authorities will not be ready with their schemes by the end of the present grant period.
I suggest that something could be done by the use of buildings which can be more quickly and more cheaply erected. A circular issued in 1932 called "Economy in School Buildings," made suggestions on these lines. It was followed by a book entitled, "Elementary School Buildings" published in 1936. It mentions that there are alternatives to brick construction, and goes on to say:
Timber buildings can be planned and equipped on the same lines as those built on brick and concrete, and can he artistically treated. If built upon brick or concrete foundations and of specially selected woods, there is every reason to believe that they would have a useful life of 40 years or more.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to a further paragraph:
The advantages of timber buildings are rapidity of erection and adaptability, and, even if they have to make way for new buildings before their useful life is run, a large sacrifice of capital expenditure is not involved. Many difficulties in modern educational administration are due to schools built to last a century, and too solid for adaptation, without excessive cost, to the inevitably changing requirements of education.
I have urged the further use of what I might call semi-permanent buildings not by any means solely on the ground that they are cheaper and more easily erected, but on the additional ground that schools rapidly become obsolete. We have built schools during the last 10 years which have become obsolete, very often because they have been on sites that were too small. My own view is that, by the time an elementary school has seen 40 or 50 years' service, it has probably served all the useful purpose it ever had in it, and is better pulled down and re-erected. I should like to add that the type of erection mentioned in this pamphlet has, I am told, been improved upon since, and that it is possible to

erect buildings, at a saving in capital cost of 25 per cent. or more, which are every bit as warm and of as good acoustic value as a brick-built structure.
I want to say a word on the subject of rural education. I was very glad to hear the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary on this subject, because the difficulties of carrying out the recommendations of the Hadow Report are considerably greater in rural than in urban areas. I myself, although I am a complete convert to reorganisation, have never been converted to the general principle of closing the village school. Although somewhat disparaging remarks have been made about the picturesque, I still have a very warm corner in my heart for the village schoolmaster, and, indeed, the village schoolmistress too, because they do and have done extraordinarily good work for the children in the lower ranges of age. These schools are admittedly quite unsuitable for older children, but I hope the Board will not pursue a policy of closure of schools without examining every case upon its merits with the greatest care. I have found also that, where reorganisation has been opposed, often very violently, by parents in rural areas, the opposition has faded away almost as soon as the school has been opened. I know of no cases in the county with which I am associated where opposition has been kept up for any length of time, and parents themselves are rapidly beginning to appreciate the fact that reorganisation in rural areas is just as vital as, and, indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, even more vital than, in urban areas.
There is no doubt, however, that there is a large body of opinion which feels very strongly that, at any rate in the earliest stages of rural reorganisation, there is a tendency to urbanise the children. Conditions in this respect have been very much improved, and it is generally accepted that a rural environment is essential. Where agreement is not complete is in regard to what is meant by a rural bias or a rural environment. There was a time—I hope it is now past—when some people had the idea that rural schools were intended to provide cheap agricultural labour, and that they should do that by neglecting to provide the sort of education which would fit a child for anything else. I think that time is past, but undoubtedly the foundation of a child's education must be his own environ-


ment. The rural type of education should undoubtedly be different from the urban type, but it must not be inferior. It has been suggested already that the worst possible thing from the point of view of the repopulation of the countryside would be to give an impression that the education provided in rural areas is inferior to that provided in urban areas. There must be no sort of suggestion of denying to rural children the opportunities which are accorded to urban children, but, nevertheless, the education must be different, though it cannot be purely vocational. I would suggest that the first two years of the post-primary stage, after 11, should be devoted to rural science, botany, biology, and so on, that the third and eventually the fourth year should be very largely practical, and that the instruction should take on a definitely agricultural tone. Such subjects as stock-keeping, agricultural chemistry, and so on, form a very good basis for a general education, and it must be emphasised that the rural schools aim at turning out children who are not only fitted for life in the countryside, but are, if necessary and if desired, fitted for life in other spheres as well.
Some of these schools are doing excellent work. East Suffolk has been mentioned as a pioneer in the treatment of rural schools, and I can also quote such schools as those at Pershore, in Worcestershire, and Holmer Green, in Buckinghamshire, where great progress has been made with this type of education with the approval, consent and advice of agricultural experts. In the county of Buckingham the appointment of special teachers—and special teachers are needed—is made by a joint committee of agriculturists and members of the education committee. It has been found that this plan works very satisfactorily, and the farmers themselves are satisfied that the education that is being given is sound. The supply of teachers is a most important matter. At present there is a shortage of teachers who are suitably qualified for this type of specialised work. I think that to some extent the training colleges themselves have been ignorant of what exactly was required. They are now getting into their stride, and it may be hoped that shortly the supply will overtake the demand.
On the subject of rural schools, I should like to stress the absolute necessity for suitable canteens. In Circular 1444,

canteens are referred to with approval, but it is not a very strong approval. The circular says:
In this connection the Board hope that authorities will consider the desirability of providing school canteens at which children who attend school from a distance can obtain satisfactory meals at a reasonable cost.
It is not a question of desirability; in the reorganisation of rural areas it is absolutely vital that suitable canteens should be provided, and that they should provide meals at a reasonable price. The price which I think could be regarded as reasonable is that which the housewife herself would normally pay in providing the meal for her own child; at any rate the price at the canteen should not be above that. It has been found, in areas where this matter has been gone into very carefully, 1s. a week for the first child and 10d. or 9d. for each subsequent child, five days a week, is a reasonable charge to make. For that sum a reasonably big canteen, providing for 60 or 70 children, can be run not at a loss, provided that the local authority meets the cost of salaries. Without these canteens rural reorganisation can never be a success, but there are still authorities in this country which have not grasped what seems to me to be a fundamental fact. Another point is the supply of drying accommodation. These problems do not affect urban areas so much as they do rural areas, where the children often get wet when going to school, and must have some proper arrangements for drying their clothes. Provided that such matters as those of drying rooms and canteens are put right, the opposition from parents which we have found in the past is likely to evaporate completely.
I think that, judging from the report of the Board and from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to-day, we have every reason to feel satisfied with the progress that is being made in education. I have some doubts myself as to the progress which is being made in secondary education. I should have liked, if time permitted, to suggest some modifications whereby it would be possible for children to enter secondary schools at a later age than the present one of 11—perhaps on the lines of entry at 11 with a two-way traffic at 13, some of the children going to the technical and commercial side and others to the secondary side. If that were adopted, at the age of 13 it would be pos-


sible to allow for further entry for those who were not successful at an earlier age. I feel very strongly, also, that the day continuation schools, which I was glad to note were referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary, have not made sufficient progress. In the Act of 1921 considerable attention was paid to the subject of day continuation schools. I myself have some experience of such a school, and can only say that I was enormously impressed when I visited it by the good work which is being done. I should like to quote to the Committee an opinion which was conveyed to me by someone who is entitled to speak on this subject. He is a big employer of labour, and I questioned him about the cost of the day continuation school with which he is associated. I asked him, "Do you ever have any objections from your shareholders about its cost?" He replied, "On the contrary, so far from having objections from our shareholders, we find that the output and the general feeling among our workpeople who are concerned with this day continuation school have improved. It has been no loss to my company, but has been in every way a great success."
I was delighted to listen to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary on the subject of nursery schools. There are too few nursery schools in this country, and there is very great scope for a larger number of them. Let us not forget, however, that the mere necessity for nursery schools is to some extent a reproach. I recognise that there is a necessity now for nursery schools, but I hope that the time will come when they will be no longer necessary. In the meantime, let us face the situation as we find it, and do all that we can to urge our local authorities to provide these much needed amenities in their areas. It has been suggested that the reason for the rather slow improvement in the number of nursery schools is one of cost, but, even from that point of view, it is surely a fact that ultimately enormous sums will be saved, not to education itself alone but to the country as a whole, if we encourage children, where the home life is not sufficiently good, to take advantage of the opportunities which are afforded by nursery schools.
Although I personally, in common with many others interested in education,

always like to see progress made, I hope very much that the poor willing member of an education committee, the manager of schools, will be borne in mind when further advances are made. He is a person who does an enormous amount of work. Very often his committee meets four or five days a week, dealing with local matters. He is unpaid, and he probably has his living to earn. Local administration of education is a very big matter, and I trust that the great unpaid, the members of local councils, will receive consideration when the progress of education is further under review. I would also suggest that these people, together with the managers and governors of schools, might receive not only consideration but thanks.

6.0 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I wish to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on a very charming, attractive speech, excellently delivered and full of first-class sentiments. But his job is to translate these sentiments into practice. If I have to criticise, I would say that the weakness of the speech was that it was a little divorced from the ordinary humdrum routine of education. After all, the great bulk of the work he has to do as a member of the Board of Education relates to the hundreds of thousands of schools throughout the length and breadth of the land. I am not one of those who disparage the tremendous improvement in education. I have been connected with education for many years. For 28 years I was a member of a local authority, and when I gave up membership I kept up my contact with education, and have taken every opportunity of going into the marvellous schools of which we have every reason to be proud. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is getting firsthand knowledge of our educational system at work. That is far better than reading reports and memoranda, even from his experts. That progress in the last quarter of a century has been great, the figures that have been given are sufficient testimony. If there is to be a criticism, I would say that our educational advance has been too much by fits and starts.
I am one of those who believe that much of the progress in education depends on the personality of the President of the Board. It is a great post, with great responsibilities and great opportunities;


but it has come to be rather the Cinderella of the Cabinet. I will not say that anybody is considered good enough—that would be an exaggeration; but it is usually used as a convenience in a Cabinet shuffle. Only too often you get a good man at the job, and he is transferred to some other position. I thought the present President of the Board of Trade was shaping well and making contacts, when off he went to another job. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that a life's study is necessary to master all the problems of education. I have a great respect for the present President of the Board of Education. He began well. One of the first things he did was to come down to Bethnal Green. That was a good beginning. But if any Minister ought to be in this House it is the President of the Board of Education. A Parliamentary Secretary, however capable he may be, cannot have the authority and the power—and it is the power that is the important thing—of the person who is actually the President of the Board. The other House has its uses, but I am pretty safe in saying there is not a single member of that august body who has a boy or girl at an elementary school. The members are not in a position to criticise. Very few are on local authorities, or have that direct personal knowledge and contact which is a great advantage to anybody who holds the very great post of President of the Board of Education.
Another thing we have to remember is that education is a partnership, and that responsibility is divided between the local authorities and the Board of Education. What always happens is that if anything is not done the Board say that it is the fault of the local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary has made it quite clear time after time that he was quite willing to go on, but that local authorities here and there are lagging behind. On the other hand, the local authorities always express great enthusiasm for education, but say that it is the Board of Education which will not come to their aid and give the necessary grant. Only too often some advance is held up because of this division of responsibility. The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly did not mention the President of the Board too much. I am glad he spoke from his own knowledge, because he is the man we have to take into account.

I hope he will not take shelter for any deficiency behind the local authorities.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that the report is much out of date. We must try to get over the disadvantage from which no other Department suffers, and see that when we have our discussion on education we shall have at any rate the report of the previous year. This report is two years' old, and most of the things in it are out of date. When the report deals with nutrition, it refers to that excellent circular 1443. It says that in that circular
the Board said that they were 'concerned to secure that all children who are unable, by reason of lack of food, to take full advantage of the education provided for them should receive such supplementary nourishment as may be appropriate in each case, the meals being provided free where the parent is unable to pay'
But in the same report there appears this passage:
In some areas the arrangements for the discovery of under-nourished children are not yet complete, in others the income scales adopted for the purpose of assessing the parents' ability to pay are too severe, while in others the food provided, the service of the meals and the premises in which they are served are all or severally open to criticism.
That is put solemnly in the report. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, what about it? It is no use saying that local authorities are lagging behind, are inefficient, or are not doing their duty. His duty is to see that each local authority is carrying out efficiently and capably the powers entrusted to it. He has a very big weapon in the power to withdraw grant. I remember that in the old days before the War, when we had a Liberal Government—many years ago—a not very bold or adventurous President of the Board actually fined a local authority by refusing to give the full grant because it failed to do its duty. The fact that a paragraph of that kind appears in the annual report is a censure not merely on the local authorities but on the Board itself.
The Parliamentary Secretary was full of enthusiasm about nursery schools, almost as enthusiastic as the hon. Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). He said that one of the finest things in the last few years was the progress of nursery schools. The annual report says that the progress in


the provision of nursery schools was somewhat slow, despite the encouragement given to local authorities by circular 1444. If circulars could build schools, they would have been built 100 years ago.

Viscountess Astor: Not 100 years ago.

Sir P. Harris: However, I understand that some progress has been made now. There are 104 nursery schools and 7,825 children attending them. But between the ages of two and five there are no fewer than 1,500,000 children. For only 7,825 to be attending nursery schools is playing with the scheme. If it had not been the energy of the Nursery Schools Association and the constant propaganda of the hon. Lady, all the circulars would not have built this comparatively small number of nursery schools. Sir George Newman pointed out that 25 per cent. of the children admitted to our schools at five years of age are suffering from defects which could have been prevented if they had been dealt with earlier. That was written years ago. Now we have only this small number of nursery schools, many of which are provided by private enterprise or voluntary organisation.
I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary the other day showed some enthusiasm for the reduction of size of classes. But there are 2,000,000 children in classes of over 40, three-quarters of whom, in the junior schools, consist of children under 11. In the Board of Education's Circular, in reference to secondary schools, it is stated that the number of pupils brought together at any one time must not, without the concurrence of the Board, exceed 30, and must never exceed 35. If 35 should be the maximum for secondary schools it is all the more important that it should be the maximum for elementary schools. In the secondary schools we naturally have the cleverer child, who has won a place by his ability and capacity, and the ordinary child in the elementary school wants more individual tuition and more personal teaching than the cleverer child in the secondary school, who can properly look after himself.
One of the big things that the Board has to do is to press on with the work of reducing the classes, especially in the

junior schools. In the ordinary preparatory schools, where wealthy children go, the classes are, as a rule, limited to 12, 13 or at the most 14 or 15 children, while the Board turned down, and, I think I am right in saying, refused a proposal from the London County Council to reduce the upper classes from 46 to 44 and junior classes from 44 to 42. It is almost unbelievable in the year 1938. It cannot be said that there are not the necessary school places, which is the usual argument, and that it would involve additional building. It is common knowledge that, owing to the fall in the child population, there is a great surplus in school places in London. We shall not be satisfied and shall not give a testimonial to the Board until we have got the average down to 40 as the maximum, something a little nearer the standard required for secondary schools. If any argument is wanted in favour of smaller classes you have a lesson in Germany. Some years ago I went to Germany, and I remember being impressed by the wonderful organisation, the fine buildings and highly organised machinery, but now we see the inevitable result of a system of mass production and large classes which do not allow proper personal initiative, and which has turned out that mass product which has resulted in the regime which we now see in Germany.
I was very interested by the speech the hon. Gentleman made in Bournemouth and by some of his remarks on secondary education this afternoon. My right hon. Friend who led from the Front Opposition Bench revived the old phrase, "Secondary education for all." I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that there is always a danger in phrases. We have to press on not uniformity of education, but equality. There is a variety of gifts. Some children express themselves in handicrafts and are far better off in the technical schools than in the secondary schools, but if there is to be this variety, there must be equality of status. There was an excellent article in the "Times Educational Supplement" by Dr. Ballard, who dealt with the selective central schools, one of the best products of the last quarter of a century. It is an excellent institution which suits the requirements of a very large number of children, who would perhaps be out of place in an ordinary secondary school. He pointed out that in the central schools


the classes are too large, the accommodation too meagre, the playing fields to few and too far away, and teachers too hard worked. All this is accompanied by inadequate pay and unsatisfactory status.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary arid the President of the Board of Education are really going to get a national system of education. Let us level up all schools in status at any rate. Let us have uniformity, but we must have equality of status in the secondary schools, the technical schools, and above all the central schools and the new senior schools. I want to refer to the interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Major Whiteley), who referred to the raising of the school age. An hon. Member above the Gangway suggested that it was not in order to refer to it as it required legislation, but I would remind him that machinery is in existence under the Act of 1936 and local education authorities are under an obligation to prepare for the appointed day. Most of the education authorities throughout the country are getting on with the job, and I hope that most of them are ready. They have had many years in which to prepare. The proposal to raise the school-leaving age did not come as a bolt from the blue in 1936. I have here the report on the education of the adolescent, which is almost an ancient document, having been published as long ago as 1926. On page 148 it says:
The course of wisdom, it appears to us, would be to pass legislation fixing the age of 15 as that for attendance at school after the lapse of five years from the date of this report.
That is to say, at the beginning of the school year, 1932. Here is the hon. and gallant Gentleman coming down as an experienced member of an education authority and saying that in September, 1939, he will not be ready.

Major Whiteley: I did not say that the education authority with which I am associated would not be ready. I said that there are many in other districts who will not be ready.

Sir P. Harris: I am glad to hear that Buckinghamshire is ready. If there are some education authorities which are not ready, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary why they are not ready? Why has not the Board been active in pushing

them on? What have the inspectors been doing? Why are they not bringing pressure to bear upon the local authorities? That is typical of the attitude of the Board. If the local education authorities are not ready, they ought to be, and the responsibility for not being ready ought to be placed upon the shoulders of the Board, the President of the Board and of the Government for not compelling them to do their duty. The other day the education authorities met at the pleasant seaside town of Bournemouth and Sir Percival Sharp, their secretary, came down with an alarmist report. I have a great admiration for the personality and character of Sir Percival Sharp, but I was very sorry to see the Parliamentary Secretary did not take the opportunity there to take a firm line by telling them that they would have to be ready. He gave the impression that he was seriously considering the suggestion of postponing the date to 1940. I am very glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. We do not want him to evade this question, but to make the policy of the Government quite clear to the country. If the local education authorities are not ready, let the Government make it clear that, during the next few months, they must press on in making provision for the necessary school places. I believe that it could be done.
I understand that part of the difficulty is the voluntary schools, but if the power and influence of the Board were used to make clear to the local education authorities that they have the legal responsibility of providing the necessary school places, I believe that when the time came the school places would be provided and the necessary provision made. The uncertainty and feeling that the Board is not prepared to take the responsibility but intends to shift it on to the local education authorities, is inevitably going to interfere with progress and bring about delay. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will not evade the question, but will make a clear statement and will make his policy so clear on this subject that "he that runs may read" and the local authorities may know exactly where they are.

6.26 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon his very able speech and the deep interest which he is showing in education. I only wish


that he had authority to do at once what he knows is right. If that were so we would see a great jump forward in respect of many of the things for which we all care. What I liked about his speech was that he did not try to make out that the Board were doing more than they really are. He indicated that there were not as many nursery schools as there should be. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members be quiet. The other day I just muddled through. [Interruption.] Be quiet.

Mr. Sexton: Do you want somebody to make your speech for you?

Viscountess Astor: I would like somebody to listen. Margaret McMillan was a pioneer, and we never ought to speak about nursery schools without acknowledging what she did. She will prove to be one of the pioneers of our generation. I appreciate all that the Government have done. The Government are spending more than any other Government has done on education, and we are facing up to this great problem. There ought to be a national policy on the feeding of necessitous children and of school canteens, not only for children in a few schools, but in all schools. I am certain that that has to come. The latest report of the Board of Education tells us that during the year, after medical inspection, 194,000 children were found to be suffering from malnutrition or subnormal nutrition, that is to say, 11 per cent. It also say that in some areas arrangements for the discovery of undernourished children are not yet complete. We know that even medical authorities disagree on the question of undernourished children. If you send children to an open-air nursery school, we can prove within a year which are the undernourished children and how to get them properly nourished.
Without a doubt there are many more than 194,000 children under-nourished in the country. You have only to go to Glasgow, South Wales or Durham, or into some of the counties to realise that fact. The other day the medical officer of health in one of our big counties reported that many of the families among the agricultural classes live in a state of semi-starvation. That is a terrific thing to say. In some of the rural areas the children are far worse off, as far as proper nourish-

ment is concerned, than are the children in the towns. This question of the feeding of under-nourished children cannot be left much longer to the local education authorities. I do not say that it is a national scandal, but it ought to be made a national charge. The time has come when we ought to have a national plan for under-nourished children. Some of the local education authorities have taken steps to deal with the problem, but others have done nothing. It is one of the real tragedies of our present system.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the Noble Lady propose a system whereby the children shall he taken out of the hands of the local education authorities?

Viscountess Astor: No, but there ought to be a national policy whereby the local education authorities would be forced to deal effectively with this question. The hon. Member knows that in Wales the most necessitous cases arise where the local education authorities cannot afford to feed these children. That is a tragedy which we cannot leave any longer in the hands of the local education authorities without dire effects on the children. This question will not wait. We must do something about it without delay. I wonder whether in the Special Areas the Commissioners for the Special Areas could take charge of the matter for the time being? No one can read page 20 of the official report on the Health of the School Child without feeling a pang. Nothing moves me so much as the plight of these under-nourished children.
This House can become terribly excited over Spain, and we have had passionate speeches about Basque children, but here are necessitous children under our own eyes. I am much more concerned about them than I am about the people of Spain or the Basque children, not that I do not want to do justice to them. I am afraid that some people get excited about Spain and the children from Spain, and there is a danger that they may become callous about our own children. [Interruption.] I am not making that as a charge against hon. Members opposite, but it is a fact that sometimes we do get profoundly excited about children from other countries, while under our very eyes we have this appalling problem of under-nourished children, and we are not dealing with it


quickly enough. Mr. Seebohm Rowntree, in the survey he gave the other day, said that if we had a subsidy of £5,000,000 per annum we could feed all the necessitous children from the large families of the low wage earners. The Government in their agricultural policy are subsidising certain foods, sugar beet and so on. If we could have a national policy for feeding the necessitous children of the country and give a subsidy for that purpose, it would in turn be a good agricultural policy, because it would create a market for home-grown food.
These children need eggs, cheese, vegetables and so on, and if those foods were home-grown it would benefit the farmer far more than the giving of certain subsidies which are benefiting certain farmers and not helping others. In that case we should have an all-round agricultural policy whilst dealing with the question of the under-nourished child. I am not saying that we are not doing better than any other country, because I am certain that we are, but we are only doing it as well as it is being done because we can come to the House of Commons and discuss these things freely together, show the country that we are interested in them and at the same time try to get the country interested in them. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the necessity and he realises that the problem will not wait for the authorities which are not doing their duty.
We talk about infant welfare centres, but it is a fact that only half the local authorities have established such centres. Circulars will not wake up the others. You may send circulars from now until doomsday, but you will not waken them. The Government's own report is alarming as regards the necessity for pressing forward with measures to promote the welfare of the children. School canteens are provided, but there is no provision for younger children to get meals in a great many schools. In the nursery classes they get no food at all. I believe the nursery classes are a positive danger. Margaret McMillan always warned me against them as being a cheap way of dealing with children between the ages of two and five. It is a cheap way and not a very good way, and I am sorry that the London County Council are going in for these nursery classes. I think it is a great mistake. The only real way is to establish open-air nursery schools.
Some hon. Members seem to think that food will do all that is necessary in these cases. That is not so. Not only do some of the under-nourished children not get proper food, but they get the wrong kind of food. They do not get the proper amount of sleep and they do not get enough fresh air. They have bad environment. The only way to get these things is in the open-air nursery schools. One hon. Member said he hoped that some day these schools would not be needed. I believe they will always be needed, not only for children of the wage-earners but for other children. We are not going to have large families in the future and it becomes all the more essential for us to safeguard the children we have, and that from the time they become social minded they should play and eat together and educate one another.
I am a great believer in a democratic system of education, but I am afraid that it will take a long time to get that, because people are so class-conscious. Let hon. Members ask their wives about it and they will tell them. I do not think the country realises that so many children who enter elementary schools are physically defective in one way or another. We must attend to that matter because we are in competition with the totalitarian States which are taking great care of their young children. Sixteen per cent. of our children entering elementary schools have some physical defects, but 16.9 per cent. have some sort of defect when leaving school. We hear a great deal about medical inspection and medical benefit. If we had open-air nursery schools and we got the children there in time, gave them proper food, proper air and proper conditions, we should not need doctors. What do doctors know about health? You never see a doctor when you are healthy. They know a great deal about ill-health but not a great deal about good health. We spend millions of pounds a year on trying to get health and we fail to get it. The Government ought to see to it that we get good health. I do not say that the open-air nursery school will guarantee good health, but it will be a very great help in that direction.
I would ask the Board of Education to see to it that where canteens are in existence those who administer them are not too rigid in their regulations. There is a scale which provides that where parents have a certain income the child cannot


be helped. There are many children whose parents are just above the income level and the children cannot get free meals, and where the parents could easily afford 2d. for a meal but not 4d. I would ask the Board to look into that question. With regard to camp schools, I know the Board have a plan before them, and I hope they will develop it. At Deptford we have camp schools and we receive testimonials from the elementary school teachers about the extraordinary effect on the children who have attended the camp schools. If we could build these camp schools we could get many thousands of children into them every year, and the results would be most beneficial. They have tried them in Italy, Belgium and Czechoslovakia. I do not think our people realise what it means to children to have a month in an open-air school. Here we have a chance of providing them. The Home Secretary said recently that one great question was that of getting people out of the towns, evacuating them. If the Government could build these camp schools we should be able to evacuate the children of London and give them a month in an open-air camp school. That would be a most interesting plan and it has already been tried and proved a success. I believe it is a plan which would appeal to our young Parliamentary Secretary.
It has been one of my greatest joys to watch the progress that we have made in this House in the last 20 years in regard to education. Previously, very few people took a deep interest in the subject, but now the whole country is aroused. The other day one of the newspapers rang me up and asked me what I thought about the postponement of the raising of the school age. I said that I could not conceive why it had not been raised many years ago. I am delighted with what the Board has done in the past year, but I should be very disappointed with the House of Commons if we did not force on the Government some national plan of feeding necessitous children, and it will have to be free feeding. We have given subsidies to the tune of millions of pounds for sugar beet, which were brought in by the National Government, bolstered up by a Labour Government and caried on by another Government. Once you get that sort of thing started it is very difficult to stop.

Surely, if we can give subsidies for sugar beet hon. Members will see to it that we get a subsidy for dealing with the necessitous children.

6.44 P.m.

Mr. Cove: We are discussing the Estimates to-day under some difficulty. The time-table may allow us a Debate only until 7.30 p.m. Therefore, we have to curtail our remarks, and I shall certainly do so. I would ask the Noble Lady how far she is prepared to finance the national feeding of necessitous children about whom she has been talking? I have noticed over and over again that the Noble Lady is very progressive in her sentiments but very reactionary in her voting, and I am afraid that if a proposal were brought before the House that would entail a few million pounds in the Budget in order to feed necessitous children, from our past experience of the Noble Lady we should find her walking into the Lobby against it. If she would not, I shall be glad to hear her deny it. How far is the hon. Member prepared to go?

Viscountess Astor: I am prepared to give the Government all my support in a policy which will ensure that undernourished children are nourished on the scale of Seebohm Rowntree's report, but I am not prepared to say that the Government should feed every child in the country in the way Socialists wish.

Mr. Cove: The hon. Lady is just sheltering behind the Government. She knows that the Government will not do any such thing, and, therefore, she can give vent to such sentiments knowing that they mean nothing. The hon. Lady gives utterance to very progressive ideas in these Debates, but I have observed that she walks into the Lobby for every reactionary proposal. She is, in fact, a loyal supporter of the Government.

Viscountess Astor: Did you vote against your Government? Never.

Mr. Cove: I would like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon his great interest in the educational services, and for the personal inconvenience he has endured by his visits to many parts of the country. I would like to congratulate him on his lyrical speech. Indeed, it took me far away from some of the realities of our educational system. It was a beautiful picture. There was


immense progress and great satisfaction, but if you look at the realities of the English educational system to-day one is hound to be struck by the fact that it is a class-ridden system. [Interruption.] It can be proved to the hilt. The educational system in 1938 still provides privileges for those who have, and lets through a very narrow neck a few of the cleverest children to get higher education. Let us look at one or two of the realities. Take the nursery schools. The Parliamentary Secretary voices progressive ideas about nursery schools, and I was expecting him to say on behalf of the Government that there was to be a great expansion of nursery schools. He said nothing of the kind. To-day we have only 105, and I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the tone and outlook of his speech are not borne out by the official circular which the Board of Education issued in 1936, in which they said:
Nursery schools have as their primary object the physical and mental nurture of t he debilitated child.
That is not the modern conception of a nursery school. A nursery school is not a school for the physically defective or for a child who is suffering from malnutrition. The modern conception, fully borne out by scientific investigation, is that every normal child should have a nursery school education, that it should be the foundation of the whole national system of education. Every normal child ought to have a chance to go to a nursery school. Every expert who has investigated this matter agrees that we have not yet realised the tremendous importance to the individual of the ages between two and five, when mental and physical disease is sown in large numbers of our children. The Board must revise its outlook upon the place and function of nursery schools in our educational system.
In his lyrical speech was the Parliamentary Secretary definite about the question of whether or not the 1936 Act is to come into effect in 1939? He was very vague. He went to Bournemouth to a conference of the educational associations and said—I am paraphrasing his speech—" You are the people I would like to consult; indeed, I have been sent down here by the Government to fly a kite, to find out whether local education autho

rities are anxious that the coming into operation of the Act in 1939 shall not be postponed." Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that he consulted local authorities for nothing? Was not there a doubt at least in his mind as to whether the Act would be applied in 1939? If not, why did he ask them? I am prepared to sit down if he will get up and say that he did not mean anything, and that he really only consulted them to get a unanimous opinion that they wanted the Act to be applied in 1939. I am not blaming the hon. Member, who had a rotten job to do on behalf of the Government, but if he says that he did not want the local authorities to say that they did not want the raising of the school age, I am prepared to sit down.

Mr. Lindsay: I think it is better that I gave a considered reply at the end of the Debate.

Mr. Cove: I will give up the whole of my speech and sit down now if the hon. Member will reply on behalf of the Government. Right through the ranks of educationists and those who have to administer the Act there is a doubt about the matter.

Mr. Lindsay: There is no plot or any secrecy about it. The Board have no intention whatever of introducing legislation to alter the appointed day. It is not in my mind; it is not in the mind of the President of the Board or in the mind of the Board itself. At Bournemouth I said that the Board had been very much concerned with a review of the areas and standards, and that preparations were very far from being complete or likely to be completed. I was not there to make up a stir about this. Some authorities were less forward and others much more forward, and I had been struck by the inequality of preparedness. We were aware that there had been an increase in building costs. Is anybody going to contradict that? Question after question had been put to me in this House. I also said that I trusted that every elf ort would be made throughout the country to secure the greatest possible measure of preparedness. That does not mean any change in the appointed day. I was talking about how far various local authorities will be prepared. That is all, and there is no equivocation in the matter at all.

Mr. Cove: I am not charging the hon. Member with equivocation, but there is still equivocation. Behind even that statement is the loopehole as to whether local authorities are prepared or not.

Mr. Lindsay: I did not say that we are going to change anything. I was dealing with facts, and there is the fact that it might be physically impossible.

Mr. Cove: As reported in the "Times" the hon. Member said:
It seemed to him that no better opportunity could be found of obtaining the collective opinion of local authorities on a suggestion that the appointed day should be postponed for one year than at the annual meeting of the association.
What does that mean? I will sit down if the hon. Member wishes to reply. I want to be quite definite about this. The specific point which the hon. Member put to the Conference was on the question of the postponement of the appointed day. Why put that specific point? Are we to take it quite definitely that whether local authorities are prepared or not the Government are going on with raising the school age in 1939?

Mr. Lindsay: My answer could not be more definite. I went to Bournemouth and made a speech which was carefully prepared, mostly on secondary education. When you are talking to a conference of all the local authorities in the country and there has been a proposal mentioned about the postponement of the appointed day, is it unwise to mention it to them? Is it out of the way to mention it to them? That was the only reference in my speech, and no inference is to be drawn from it. I say categorically that there is nothing at all behind it.

Mr. Cove: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it that I am attacking him personally. I appreciate his interest and his enthusiasm in the matter of education, but he speaks for the Government, and he would not have gone to such a responsible conference and put such a specific question as he did unless he was speaking the mind of the Government.

Mr. Lindsay: The last thing I want to do is to hide behind anyone else. There is no question in the mind of the Government of doing this.

Mr. Cove: Evidently things are not very clear in the National Government.

I hope there will be no weakening on the part of the Board of Education or the President himself, or the Parliamentary Secretary, in sticking to the provisions of the 1936 Act as far as the appointed day is concerned, because I want to remind the hon. Gentleman that that Act, in some parts of it, was accepted with very great reluctance. It was part of a bargain. I do not mind saying that I supported the religious part of the Act as part of a bargain that the school age should be raised, although it was a very poor raising of the school age with the system of exemptions. I hope that the Government are going to stick to the bargain, because I am not prepared to see that part of the Act implemented up to a certain point only. I do not know whether the statement of the hon. Gentleman is reassuring, but I can tell him that we shall watch with very great keenness to see what is going to happen.
What about school buildings? What about the black list? I forget how many years ago—it was in 1924, I am told—that we had a black list. I see in the Board's report that it has receded now into a nice little paragraph, tucked away in the report. But there what do we find? In 1924 there were 2,700 blacklisted schools. After all these years there are still 1,000 of them in existence. And has this House any conception of what some of these schools are like? I am going to read the details about one of them, in the salubrious city of Salford. I have had the permission of the person concerned to read this report. I have a large number of these cases, but it is very rare that I get permission from the local people to give the name of the school. Referring to the lack of gangways in the schoolroom, this report says:
As an example of the general defect, please see scale drawing showing arrangement of desks for Standards VI and VII, girls, during last August, September and October. In this class there is only one central gangway, and no passage at the back of the class near the wall. All these children not sitting next the gangway or at the two sides have no freedom of movement. They are imprisoned.
This is the schoolmaster himself who says:
They become fidgety and nervy. If one of them requires a pen or book, etc., she cannot come out and help herself without disturbing three or four others, and even then she must get permission from each of those others between herself and the gangway or the sides before she can move at all. Every time this occurs, which is often, it causes a commotion, a waste of time, and a continual worry for the teacher.


Then he goes on about the stockroom. Stock is scattered all over the place because there is no place for a stockroom. Then we come to the sanitary arrangements. They always make me sick to read about them, and there are quite a number of schools in this country in just as bad a condition as this one. Do not let us pride ourselves that we have school buildings in this country everyone of which is fit to be seen. Speaking of closets and urinals, he writes:
There is yet no separate accommodation for teachers. They have to take turn with the children and be overlooked by them over the wooden partitions. The position of these closets for boys and girls, together with the brick wall between their playgrounds is a hindrance to school work, namely, assembly, physical training, supervision, etc.
There are 380 children in this school, and with regard to closets for boys it is stated:
One of these is supposed to be locked and reserved for teachers. Locking does not make it satisfactory. Neither is it reserved. It is without a lock most of the time, latest period from March, 1937, as reported to present date. Since then the children have been using it. In two of these closets—
I am going to read it to the House, although I do not like doing so, because there are other schools in just as bad a condition.

Mr. McGhee: They are smiling at it.

Mr. Cove: I am sorry that this makes anybody smile. If he smiles I will give a lot more. It is time to get rid of these filthy schools. Members come down here and boast about the expansion of our educational system and the capital expenditure upon it, when there is no doubt that those thousand schools on the black list ought to be wiped out. The standards themselves are low, and the Board is conniving at many of these conditions. I take the position that money must be found to get rid of all these dilapidated. filthy schools under Church control. I am not prepared to see the children or the teachers going on any longer in these schools. Let them get on with the 1936 Act. The Board of Education are afraid. I ask them to be courageous enough to say that in the interests of the health of the children these insanitary schools must go. I return to the details of this school at Salford:
In two of these closets, perhaps also in the other, it is impossible for an adult to go in and close the door, without standing on the seat. As there is not sufficient urinal

accommodation the closets, being so near, are often used as urinals, consequently the seats are wet and dirty most of the time. But this is not the only cause. They do not dry for days after rainfall. The roof was reported broken on 7th September, 1936, and not since repaired. The roof over the girls' closets is now broken. The smells—
and I have worked in a class room myself years ago where I got the smell from the urinal, and it is not very pleasant.
The smells from both boys' and girls' out-offices are liable to be blown directly into the schoolroom, and the children, both boys and girls, can be seen from the main room adjusting their attire going into or coming out of the closets. If one is sitting on one of these closets, when the automatic flush cistern empties, he has to jump up to let the flood, etc., pass by. Sometimes when the boys have to use these closets, many of them (wisely) don't sit on the seat; they take off their coats and stand on the seat.
That is an actual school. I want the Board of Education to take a strong line over the black-listed schools. As a matter of fact, these schools are deteriorating more quickly than they are being renovated. The rate of deterioration is much quicker than the progress of the Board in getting rid of them.
The Board is adopting a very reactionary attitude over the size of classes. I notice in the Press that an influential composite deputation went to the Board the other day and asked it to reduce the size of classes. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) there are 2,000,000 children in this country in classes of 40 and over. You cannot teach in classes of that size. There are 200,000 children in classes of 50 and over. I want to tackle the Board on this, and I want the Under-Secretary to reply. The Board takes the attitude that the smaller the child the bigger the class should be. When I was in college I remember they used to tell me "The smaller the child the bigger the book"—not the bigger the class. I want to ask the Under-Secretary how does the Board justify classes of 50 juniors, and classes of 40 seniors? Why are there more large classes for the younger children than for the older? As a matter of fact, the younger children need smaller classes and as much individual attention as the older ones. The Parliamentary Secretary comes down here and gives an excellent modern speech on education, but behind that is the policy of the Board, and I can only think that the real reason why they say "Big classes


for little children and smaller classes for bigger ones" is that the Board itself is still anchored to the old conception of education as drill and the three "r's." It has not got the conception of physical and mental and spiritual nurture for these infants, or else it would not have youngsters of five or six years of age being drilled in large classes—because that is what it means. If there is any place in life for physical or mental freedom and culture, it should be provided for these smaller children, and you cannot have that if they are in classes of 50. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, what is the real reason for it? Is it finance? I cannot see any educational reason.
Finally, I was hoping to justify my first statement that our system of education is still class-ridden: it fits in with a class system of society. After all, how many children who go to an elementary school get the opportunity of secondary education? The figure was given this afternoon as being 10 per cent. Six or seven out of every 100 children in elementary schools can look forward to secondary education that is free.

Sir William Wayland: Is not that a question of brains?

Mr. Cove: I advise the hon. Member to read "Political Arithmetic: A Symposium of Population Studies," edited by Lancelot Hogben. He will find that if this country is going to rely on brains in the future, the reservoir on which it will have to draw is the working-class children of this country. It will not find them in the middle classes. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to Mrs. Parker's address. Mrs. Parker truly said that the scholarship examination at the age of 11 is really an examination to keep most children out rather than to let them in. All the investigations that have been made, psychological and statistical, have shown clearly that there are hundreds of thousands of children in elementary schools who are capable of benefiting from a secondary education.
As to reorganisation, in my view it is a farce and a humbug, and it will be so as long as it is merely the transference, as it is in many areas, of a set of children into another school. The essence of reorganisation, as set out in the Hadow Report, is that all education above the age of II shall be of the same

quality and have the same status. We are proud of our central schools, but in the social sense they are neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring. They still have an elementary course. The Board have no right to keep those schools on an elementary course. We do not want merely an extension of literary education; what we want is the abolition of the privileges of the fee-payers. The public schools ought to be abolished as class schools, for class schools they are. How many working men's children are there at Harrow and Winchester? How many workmen's children are there in the hundred or so schools the headmasters of which are members of the Headmaster's Conference, and which, therefore, because of that fact, are designated as public schools? How many agricultural labourers' children in the rural areas are even in the secondary schools? The greatest bar of all is the poverty of these people. It may be a platitude, but can any hon. Member tell me how we can approach a really democratic system of society unless there is equality of opportunity in the educational system? That lies at the very root of democracy.
There cannot be equality of educational opportunity while there are these public schools such as Eton, Harrow, and Winchester, which I believe is now at the top, because I am told that now it is even more "swanky" than the others. There are the public schools, the secondary schools, the central schools, and now the senior schools, a whole mix-up. It is not a system. As it is at present, one can see in it only the maintenance of class privileges. I have seen a great deal of propaganda in the Press lately in favour of cutting down education. I have seen it referred to as a luxury, or, worse, a waste. Let hon. Members opposite consider this. Some of them may have wealth and may own property. How does a person with property maintain that property for his children and his family? Does he say to his son, "I am not going to leave you my money; you must go out to work at the age of 14"? No. What the ruling classes have done through the years has been, in addition to bequeathing their property to their children, to bequeath them the best education that privileged schools could provide. They have sent their children to Eton, Harrow and Winchester; they have bolstered up their privileges by a privileged system of education. I


say that, although the Parliamentary Secretary has painted a beautiful picture, we have a long way to go in our educational system before we get our children as properly educated and nurtured as they should be, and we certainly have a much longer path to tread before we get equality of opportunity which, after all, is the hallmark of a democratic system.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has certainly lived up to his reputation for power of denunciation. He started by saying that our educational system is a class-ridden system. Does he not remember that it is the result of centuries of development? That system has been gradually evolved, and it is gradually being broadened out. When the hon. Member says that it is a system which gives to those that have, I can only reply to him that at the present time, under the National Government, that system is doing rather more for those that have not than his hon. Friends did when they were in office. This afternoon we have had presented to us an Estimate for education which is the largest, but for one, in the history of education. Do not these £51,000,000 come, for the most part, out of the pockets of those that have for the benefit of those that have not? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is an obvious fact. With regard to the regrettable instances which the hon. Member gave of insanitary schools, I do not suppose that even the hon. Member would represent them as being typical. Of course, they ought to be abolished, but I think that the hon. Member overstated his case.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) is present, and I would like now to refer to a point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), concerning the school certificate examination, a matter to which reference was made in the Debate on the Estimates for education last year. The right hon. Gentleman and I agreed then, as we agree now, that that examination ought not to perform two functions; it ought not to be a matriculation examination as well as an examination for a certificate of good education for those who have arrived at the age of 16 plus. That is the opinion of education authorities throughout the country. I hope that my

hon. Friend the Member for London University will forgive when I say that London University stands in the way of that reform. Undoubtedly, that examination ought to be quite separate from the matriculation examination. I would urge my hon. Friend to represent to his university that they are standing in the way of a most needed reform.
I do not agree so much with the right hon. Gentleman in his references to secondary education. We heard a most interesting speech from the Parliamentary Secretary, in which he most thoughtfully discussed the aims of secondary schools. Last year my hon. Friend gave us an attractive and thoughtful speech, but if I may say so, his speech this year, while equally attractive and thoughtful, was wider in scope, for naturally he has had wider experience. He told us that in the course of the year he visited 150 schools, and that in itself was an education in administrative experience. The question of secondary schools is intensely interesting. The hon. Member for Aberavon said that the children in this country have not equal opportunity for secondary education. All education after the elementary school is secondary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley said, "Yes, in effect that may be so, but the quality is not the same; it is cheaper than in the secondary schools." I do not think that the staffs of the selective central schools, for instance, would thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that the teaching that they give is inferior to the teaching given in secondary schools.

Mr. Morgan Jones: The salaries are inferior.

Mr. Somerville: That may be so, but we do not measure everything by pounds, shillings and pence.

Mr. Cove: What about the difficulty of the Board laying down classes of 30 to 35, as a maximum, in secondary schools?

Mr. Somerville: That is a detail. Many classes of 35 can be taught with success. A great deal of nonsense is talked about the size of classes. I have been in selective central schools and in secondary schools, and I am prepared to say that the teaching in central schools is first rate. Let us face the facts. The great majority of the rank and file in this country have to be manual workers. What we want in the


secondary schools is to develop leaders. We ought to acknowledge that. There is a great defect in the secondary school system and in the selective central school system. The senior schools and the nonselective central schools are in a position of delightful independence, free from examinations. The senior schools and the non-selective central schools have the vast advantage—I speak from experience—of being able to be developed by the teacher freely according to the capacity of the pupils, guided only by understanding and wise inspectors; but the selective central schools and the secondary schools are trammelled by examinations. What do we find? We find that in the selective central schools there are pupils who ought to be in the secondary schools, and in the secondary schools many pupils who ought to be in selective central schools. I should like the two systems to be combined, and to establish in central schools three sides, as is done in France in the Act which was introduced by the Minister of Public Instruction, M. Jean Zay, who said that national education must be in three degrees. I see that I cannot continue my remarks, as the shadow of Surrey is hanging over the Chamber.

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

[Lords] (by Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.31 p.m.

Sir Richard Meller: I hope this Bill will not be found to cast any shadow upon the House. On the contrary, I hope that after the discussion there will be an atmosphere of clear sunshine in which hon. Members will see their way clearly how to vote on these proposals. The Bill is a short Measure and may be regarded as an extraordinary Measure, because it deals with two pieces of land of comparatively small dimensions. It asks the House to authorise certain action by the

county council which, in other circumstances, could have been taken by the county council under existing compulsory purchase vested in them. One of these two pieces of land is situated at Lower Morden and comprises some 31 acres of which about 24 acres are required for cemetery purposes and about 6 acres for a schools playing-field. The other site is in the district of Carshalton. It was acquired by the urban district council of Carshalton some years ago for a cemetery, and it is now required by the county council as a site for a central laundry. This Bill is necessitated by the fact that in order to exchange land which has been acquired for the purposes of a cemetery for other land not only is the consent of the Ministry necessary but the other land must be in the possession of the county council.
The facts which have given rise to the necessity for the Bill in this case are as follows. The county council in July, 1936, approved of the principle of a central laundry scheme. The Ministry of Health was consulted and intimated its general approval. In July, 1937, the county council authorised an expenditure of £185,000 on the equipment of a central laundry, and working drawings and detailed plans were approved, provisionally, by the Minister of Health. It was necessary that the laundry should be built on a site convenient to a very large hospital which the county council is building in an area where in recent years there has been placed a very large housing scheme, known as the St. Helier Estate. Since the Act of 1929 greater responsibilities have devolved upon the county council in connection with providing hospitals and caring for the sick and the poor. Having regard to their responsibilities, they took up the urgent question of the provision of hospitals. They are building the hospital at St. Helier on land which has been given by the London County Council, but that land is limited in its dimensions. Indeed so limited is it that the hospital, which is to accommodate some 850 patients and a staff of 500, has had to be built into the air at a much greater height than would ordinarily have been contemplated, and no space round about the site is available.
The county council have for some time experimented with and carried on very successfully laundries in connection with some of their institutions. They had


laundries at Kingston and at Epsom. I have already mentioned the St. Helier Hospital, which is costing in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. The county council have also had to provide extensions of the hospitals at Kingston and Epsom, and in both cases it is impossible to extend the hospitals without demolishing the laundries which existed in connection with those hospitals. Therefore, the county council formed the view that it was more economical and, upon hygienic grounds, more desirable that the washing in connection with the hospitals should be concentrated in a works specifically built for the purpose, and not mixed in any way with the work of private laundries. They came to the conclusion that a large laundry was necessary for this purpose. They looked round to find a suitable site. A considerable time was occupied in doing so, and at last they found a site which was suitable as regards situation, because it was near where the hospital was being built at St. Helier and was suitable also from the point of view of ease of access for labour and convenience as regards power and water. That site was the cemetery site at Carshalton. They examined other places, but they were met with many difficulties because the paramount need was labour, and it was not desirable to go far afield with the scheme. The site at Carshalton also is comparatively easy of access from Kingston and from Epsom.
The county council entered into negotiations with Carshalton. Carshalton was willing and the Minister was willing to help them, and they thereupon set about finding suitable alternative land for the cemetery site. They were faced with two difficulties—the suitability of the site for the laundry and the suitability of the site for the cemetery. It was also desirable that the cemetery site should be easy of access. The piece of land in Morden was then discovered. Overtures were made to the then owner, but he frankly refused to enter into negotiation. The county council then set about looking for other land but came up against this difficulty, that practically every site which could be considered within reasonable distance, was upon chalk. They had land on their hands in the form of smallholdings at Woodmansterne, but just about that time there occurred the typhoid trouble in Croydon and public opinion was strongly against putting cemeteries or sewage

works or any user of land of that kind upon chalk which might, according to the theory then in the minds of a good many people, be likely to contaminate water supplies.
Therefore, the county council were forced to consider again the Morden site which appeared suitable from many points of view. First there was already a large cemetery there owned by the Battersea Council. There is another portion of land now being laid off and running side by side with it belonging to the Malden District Council, and there is a third piece of land which is that desired by the county council partly for the purpose of exchanging with Carshalton as their cemetery site and partly for a school with playing fields—about 6½ acres. The playing fields would be used by this school and other schools in the district. The site of this land is bounded by two cemeteries and by a sewage disposal works and near it there is the Sutton gasometer while just at the other side is a large field known as the Hood Memorial ground.

Sir Arnold Wilson: A pleasant prospect.

Sir R. Mellor: My hon. Friend says it is a pleasant prospect, but we must have these places somewhere and if it is said that a cemetery affects the amenities of a district, surely it is better to have one large cemetery or two or three cemeteries all together, than have smaller cemeteries dotted about everywhere over a larger area. The county council, after very careful consideration, came to the conclusion that this was the right place.
I have heard it said that the county council is embarking upon a municipal trading. That is not so. This laundry is to be used solely for dealing with the washing of these hospitals which will amount to about 250,000 pieces per week. It may be asked, why not give out this work to a commercial laundry? You could not put so large a proposition to a commercial laundry unless you were prepared to enter into a very long contract. What private laundry proprietor would be prepared to spend the vast sums required for machinery and extension of buildings in order to cope with such a quantity of work, unless arrangements were made covering a long period of years? In that case what guarantee would the council have that the work would be carried out satis-


factorily? If it were not carried out satisfactorily the council would find itself in a dilemma. Having carefully studied the matter the county council arrived at the conclusion that a central laundry was desirable in all the circumstances, and I hope that their decision will be confirmed by the House.
Other objections have been raised. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) is to raise one to-night. He has been good enough to let me know some of his views, but probably he will expand them later. I hope that by the time I have finished I shall have persuaded him that to take the line which he proposes would be base ingratitude to an authority which has as much at heart as he has, the scheme for open spaces. He has seen this site and he says that it is ideal for playing fields and therefore that it is wrong to use it as a cemetery. He says that he is not concerned with the troubles of the county council and that he is more concerned for the living than the dead. I fully agree that the county council have a duty to the living, but they have a duty to the living who are sick, in addition to their duty to the living who are well. The local authority might be severely criticised for not providing an open space, but they would be condemned and never forgiven were they to neglect their duty to the sick and suffering. I venture to say that if the House refuses a Second Reading to this Bill, it will be doing an injustice to the authority which has striven, to the best of its ability, to do this work, and it will be hampering that authority in carrying out the work imposed upon it by the Local Government Act, 1929.
On the question of open spaces, let us see where Surrey stands. What have we done in this matter? I have been looking through a summary of open spaces which has been published by the London County Council, and I find that it gives the percentage of area in the Home counties occupied by public open spaces, from which it appears that in Buckinghamshire they have 2.6 per cent. of the county as open space, in Essex 6.8, in Hertfordshire 6.3, in Kent 3.9, in Middlesex 9.7, and in Surrey 10 per cent., excluding water and rural districts. That is not the only thing, for although Surrey

is a county of commons, the county council has acquired open spaces during the past few years, and it has contributed, either by contributions in whole or in part, apart altogether from the green belt scheme, some 5,000 acres. If I take the recommendation of the committee which considered the question of open spaces for the public, that there should be seven acres for every thousand of the population, I find that the Surrey County Council have provided for at least 49,000 people, and, more than that, they have provided in the green belt scheme 1,479 acres, and in other ways they have contributed 970 acres.
But let us deal with this particular site and see whether there is the urgent necessity for this open space. Within a mile radius of the proposed land for this cemetery, there are no fewer than 500 acres of open space—surely a very generous contribution. The hon. Member for Swindon would have all the land, I suppose, as an open space for the people to enjoy. It is said that the landowner himself has expressed certain views on this question, but it is only since the matter has become so urgent, because I want the House to understand that when the Bill was introduced in another place, only one petition, and that, the petition of the landowner, was lodged against the Bill, but in this House there has been no petition lodged at all, and that is a point which ought to be taken into consideration. The owner of this land suddenly finds himself in this position, that he is very anxious that it should be used, after he has finished with it, presumably when he has passed to the Elysian fields, for an open space, but there is no guarantee of that, there is no conveying of it for the public use, and nobody at present has offered to purchase it as an open space. It is, therefore, very problematical whether it would be so used.
I venture to say that, on the question of an open playing field, we in Surrey have provided exceedingly well, and particularly so in the immediate district of this site. I understand that there may be an objection raised on the score that you might have a cemetery with a crematorium, but on the question of crematoria, I understand that no small cemetery is ever considered suitable, and indeed they are rather costly to put up.


Therefore, if you had two or three large cemeteries together, you might in due course have a burial board, and possibly the desires of the hon. Member who may raise this matter might be met by an amalgamation of these lands.
The county council are, I feel, placed in a dilemma. They find what they regard as the most suitable land, land which on all hands is recognised as being desirable—the town planning authorities at Morden and Carshalton do not object to the proposals—and, therefore, I ask this House, realising the great responsibility which is placed upon the county council, realising too, as we all do, how desirable it is there should be open spaces, to say that this is a Bill which ought to be supported. If there be good reasons for an examination in greater detail than can be done in this House, let the House agree to give the Bill a Second Reading and consider it in Committee, but let us not thwart local authorities in carrying out duties which we have placed upon them. What is to happen if this very necessary adjunct to a great hospital is not conceded? I am told that practically every hospital to-day finds it necessary to have a laundry attached to it. This has not been found possible here, because of the limitations of the land, but as near as possible to the site of the hospital and to the sites of the other two hospitals which are to be benefited by this scheme, we have found a site; we have avoided the modern objections to placing a cemetery upon chalk land, and—

Sir A. Wilson: What are these modern objections of which the hon. Member speaks? Since when has it been an objection, and why is it modern?

Sir R. Meller: It is an objection which has been held in the minds of some people for some years, but it has become far more acute since the Croydon trouble last year.

Sir A. Wilson: Can the hon. Member give me any scientific reason or say since when it has been an objection?

Sir R. Meller: I am not a scientist, nor am I a geologist, but I would ask the hon. Member to go into the district concerned. Let him go to Sutton, to Carshalton, to Croydon, or to any of the districts around where they have suffered as a result of the alleged pouring or leakage of impuri-

ties through fissures in the chalk. After all, public opinion must be considered, and the scientist is not always right. You cannot assuage the fears of people merely by saying it is all nonsense. Scientists of the day may say you cannot pollute water through chalk, but you have to face facts, and that is what we are doing. I ask the House to give this Bill its very careful consideration, realising what depends upon it, realising what the Surrey County Council have done, and I venture to say that if Members of this House face dispassionately the considerations which have been placed before them, they will have no other alternative than to give the Bill.a Second Reading without a Division.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Wakefield: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) has told the House the reasons why the Surrey County Council desire that this Bill should have a Second Reading, and he has described to us the necessity, as he suggests, for obtaining a piece of land at Morden close to the Kingston By-pass, a piece of land which in every way is admirably suited, not for a cemetery, but for a recreation space and for a playing-field, a piece of land close to the railway, close to other recreation grounds, close to the main road, close to where people live, accessible for the playing of games; and in these days it is extremely difficult to get a level, naturally-drained piece of ground, as this is, close to transport facilities and suitable for a playing-field.
The hon. Member has described the necessity, as he suggests, for the Surrey County Council using this as a cemetery because it is desired to erect a central laundry in the north-eastern part of the county. He rather suggested that I preferred to make the point that we should consider the needs of the living rather than of the dead, and he said that that in fact was what the Surrey County Council were doing, that they were considering the needs of the sick and needy, and that, therefore, it was necessary to establish a central laundry. I would suggest that by refusing to give permission to the Surrey County Council compulsorily to acquire this piece of land by Morden,


the House will not necessarily prevent the erection of a central laundry.
It is proposed to erect a central laundry on a site which for 39 years has been scheduled as a cemetery for use by the Carshalton Urban District Council, but the hon. Member did not tell the House that they had looked at other sites, and in particular at another site which last summer they found to be entirely suitable. This particular site is situated in the Carshalton urban district, and they pursued a course of action, which was quite right and proper, before scheduling this land for cemetery purposes, to see whether there were any objections to its use as a cemetery. The Ministry of Health investigated the position, and the Sutton District Water Company objected to the site being used for a cemetery, but the Surrey County Council and the Carshalton Urban District Council obtained independent advice as to the suitability or otherwise of the site for a cemetery, and following upon that independent advice, they actually, on 21st July, 1937, included this land in their town plan as a site for a cemetery. Therefore, the House will see that if the Bill is not allowed to go through, it will not prevent a central laundry being erected on this site at Carshalton, because there is an alternative site available for the purposes of a cemetery.

Mr. Ede: I do not think the hon. Member has stated the position quite clearly. He cannot say that the Ministry of Health have given their sanction to the site that he has mentioned.

Mr. Wakefield: The Ministry of Health have issued a full statement as to what ground is suitable and what is unsuitable for cemetery purposes. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who is seconding the Amendment, will deal with that aspect of the case in detail. I am proposing to deal primarily with the need for open playing spaces on the outskirts of London. There are three objections to this Bill. The first is to the Surrey Council running a laundry. Other Members will have something to say upon this point, although I do not desire to raise any objection to Surrey County Council working a laundry. I have dealt with the second objection, which is that there is an alternative site available. The third objection is to the compulsory

acquisition of this land for cemetery purposes on the ground that it is land which ought to be town planned and scheduled as an open playing space. The importance of having level land for playing-fields cannot be too greatly stressed. I agree that Surrey have played an important part in providing open spaces on the south side of London. They have done well in this matter, but I do not think that people realise how important it is that level open spaces near to where people live should be preserved.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education earlier to-day made reference to the increase in the number of playing-fields and gymnasia which are being provided for schools. He also pointed out that it is not much use providing them for young people in school unless facilities were available for them when they grow up. For that reason the National Fitness Council was formed, and the Parliamentary Secretary described some of the work the council was doing. I am privileged to be a member of that council and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is chairman of an area committee covering the very area about which we are talking. He knows as well as I do the importance of having adequate facilities for places in which people can play games. It is not much good telling people to keep fit if they are not provided with playing-fields. The greatest difficulty with which the Fitness Council are faced is to find adequate facilities to enable people to take exercise. The appalling building over of open spaces in London grows apace. I remember only a few years ago I used to fly from the De Havilland Aerodrome at Stag Lane, a beautiful level space that ought to have been preserved for playing-fields. Because building had gone on round the aerodrome, the De Havilland Aircraft Company moved into the country, At once that level space was built over, although there was urgent need for its preservation as playing-fields for people living in the district.
That is the sort of thing which is happening all over London. The London County Council have applications every winter and summer for playing pitches from over 1,000 clubs. Only one-third of these can be satisfied. A cricket team can play only on certain occasions during the season, and a football club can get


only one out of every three Saturdays for playing. In the last 10 years over 20,000 acres within a radius of 10 miles of this House have been built upon. More than half of these were in use as playing fields when they were built upon. At the present time the needs of Central London and Greater London are such that at least 30,000 or more acres could be utilised with advantage. The hon. Member for Mitcham gave figures showing what Surrey was doing in the preservation of open spaces, but open spaces down at Guildford are not much use for people living in the centre of London. They want to play games close to where they live. The hon. Member made a point that there were no petitions against the Bill and that the local people were satisfied that there were enough open spaces for their needs.

Sir R. Meller: Out of 3,227 acres acquired by Surrey County Council, only 450 lie in Guildford. The rest are in the district from Epsom to Richmond.

Mr. Wakefield: The point I am making is that playing-fields, in order to be of any value to people in the big cities, must be close to where they live. All land close to London which is level and can be suitably used for playing-fields ought to be town-planned and preserved for that purpose. It ought not to be used for sewers or roads or cemeteries. The hon. Member suggested that there was no local objection to the Bill and that the local people were satisfied. We have to consider a case of this kind, however, not on local merits but on the needs of London as a whole. If we look at the figures we see that there is a great need for extra playing fields not only in that district, but in districts such as Merton, Carshalton and elsewhere in order to meet the needs of people living in Central London. I would like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for South Shields for the great work he has done in the preservation of open spaces and fields in Surrey. He has had great difficulty with his reactionary colleagues on the Surrey County Council. I am looking forward to having his support on this occasion.

Sir R. Meller: I can say that nothing has had an easier passage than the proposals of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he asked the Surrey County Council to contribute to-

wards the open spaces in the green belt scheme.

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member and the Surrey County Council have certainly done good work. I am pointing out that the hon. Member is in a peculiar position. He is Chairman of the Estates Committee of the Surrey County Council and of the Area Committee of the National Fitness Council. His position reminds me of the woman who was before a judge and when being questioned was asked her age. She said it was 30. The judge intervened and said, "My good woman, seven years ago you were in the court and you then said your age was 30." "Yes," replied the woman, "but I am not the sort of person to say one thing one day and another thing another day." The hon. Member must be consistent, and I look forward to his support on this occasion so that we can have this place at Morden scheduled as an open space. I will give some figures to show the urgency of the position. It is an accepted standard that there should be an acre of open space to every 150 people. What is the position in Central London? In Deptford there are 2,749 people per acre of public open space; in Finsbury 4,892, Holborn 3,849, Islington 6,362, Shoreditch 9,500, Southwark 4,500, and Stepney 4,800. The hon. Member suggested that Merton and Morden were well served with playing spaces.

Sir Alfred Beit: Is there anywhere in Central London where there are only 150 to the acre of open space?

Mr. Wakefield: No, but that is the standard set up for urban areas. If there is this grave shortage in Central London there ought to be on the outskirts a standard not of 150, but of 50 to the acre, to make up for the deficiency in Central London. In the Merton and Morden district there are 316 people per acre of open space, about twice the number there ought to be for the local needs. Certain open spaces have been acquired in that district recently, but, on the other hand, houses are going up by the hundred and fields are being built over. That position will not get better. The hon. Member mentioned the recreation grounds that existed in that district, but they are not available to the people living there. One of them belongs to the British Broadcasting Corporation and is used by people who work in Central London. London University also have a ground there. I


was there the other day at some sports when the ground was being used by people from East London. Most of the recreation grounds in that area are used by clubs and by people who live in Central London where open spaces are not available for them. So it is of importance that this level ground, close to road and railway facilities, should be preserved and town-planned as an open space instead of being used as a cemetery.
I want to impress upon the House that local authorities, and even Government Departments, do not realise the importance of the preservation of open spaces. The hon. Member opposite knows how the London County Council are building an estate at Carshalton near to where this central laundry is being put. The big development of the district is one of the reasons why the laundry is being erected there, but the London County Council, in their town-planning arrangements, did not schedule sufficient open space for the people going to live there. Only this morning I was at a meeting of the National Playing Fields Association and was told that a generous private individual was so upset at the position that he had offered, through the Association, to buy back 38½ acres from the London County Council and to give it as an open space for the residents on the St. Helier Estate—that is land which the London County Council intended to build upon. Scarcely a day passes on which I do not get a letter from some part of the country to tell me, or read in a paper, that a playing-field is to be built upon either by a Government Department, a local authority or private enterprise. A few weeks ago I saw in the "Daily Herald" that Craven Cottage, home of Fulham football for 40 years might be sold as a site for luxury flats built to overlook the Thames. If people can afford to go into luxury flats they can afford to move further out. That report stated:
The Fulham ground was originally tree-covered park land, and it is claimed that the method of cutting down the trees, leaving in the roots, and constructing the soccer pitch on a higher ground level, was largely responsible for producing one of the best playing pitches in the country.
I have other letters showing that it is not realised throughout the country how necessary it is that we should preserve every piece of ground, however small, in the midst of our urban areas. The other

day I came across another instance of this lack of appreciation. I am chairman of a committee which runs some youth hostels. The ground at the back of one of the hostels belongs to the Government, and it is a space which is suitable for use by the young people from those hostels or by the people from a big block of flats which is being built just across the road. I heard that it was proposed to build upon this ground, which belongs to the Government. If that attitude of mind exists it is difficult for us to preserve playing-fields and open spaces.
I have another letter here from Ilkley. I give this example to show how difficult it is to get playing-fields in hilly country. You can put a cemetery in hilly country, but not a playing-field. At Ilkley there is a scheme for a new trunk road, and it is stated that if the scheme goes through practically every football, cricket and tennis ground and various other recreation grounds will be seriously affected, and some of them to all intents and purposes rendered useless. Another letter comes from the secretary of the Old Salfordians Rugby Football Club, in which he says:
Early this year we celebrated our silver jubilee as a club, and now we have suddenly been given notice to quit our ground at the end of the month. We were sub-tenants of the Manchester Collieries, and they too have been given similar notice to quit. The land has been bought for building at a heavy figure. This was most unexpected by anyone in the neighbourhood as it was generally thought that the land was unsuitable since it lay below the level of the road. We are not in a position to buy a ground of our own, as the majority of our members and officials are artisans and black-coated workers. Land is very scarce in this district, and having asked the county to help us in our search they have advised me to write to you.
I have given these examples to show how important it is that Government Departments, local authorities and private bodies should do their utmost to preserve every suitable level space which has easy access to transport and which does not call for much outlay for drainage purposes. I hope that I have shown that this piece of ground at Morden ought to be preserved and town-planned as an open space, and I hope I have shown, though the hon. Member who is seconding the Amendment will elaborate the reasons in greater detail, why the alternative site which was originally chosen should now be used. I hope that the Surrey County Council will drop the promotion of this


Bill, realising that it will be better to study the needs of the living rather than of the dead, that they will permit this open space to remain an open space, and fall back upon the alternative space which is available for the cemetery, and then they can build their central laundry and the sick and needy will be none the worse for it.

Mr. Leslie: Is that site available as a playing-ground?

Mr. Wakefield: The hon. Member asks whether the Morden site is available as a playing-ground, and the answer is, yes, that the present owner has dedicated it during his lifetime as an open space. He will not sell it for building purpose, and there is no reason at all why it should not be town-planned as an open space and preserved as a playing-ground for all time. It could be preserved, and undoubtedly if the Surrey County Council did not require to have it as a public open space there would be many firms or clubs which would be only too glad to rent it for games.

Sir R. Meller: The hon. Member says this field has been dedicated as a playing-field, but is it not the fact that it is now let to a dairyman for grazing purposes? What does the hon. Member mean by saying that it is dedicated as a playing-field?

Mr. Wakefield: During the lifetime of the present owner it will not be built upon and there will be an opportunity for maintaining it as an open space. We shall not have the sort of thing happening here that happened at Stag Lane when the aircraft company left.

8.23 p.m.

Sir A. Wilson: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) in his references to the playing-fields aspect of this question. I am concerned with it primarily from the point of view of the importance of being most careful in the selection of burial grounds, and I venture to hope that no one will think that this House is wasting its time on parochial pump politics in discussing a Bill of this kind, because it really is important. The burial aspect may well be summarised in a very few words. About 180 years ago the people of this country were induced to take to coffins instead of being buried in shrouds. The significance of that was that the churchyard, parti-

cularly in urban areas, following upon the industrial revolution, became rapidly overcrowded, for so long as bodies were buried in shrouds they rapidly mingled with the earth to which they were returned, and the ground in the churchyards could be used, and was used, again and again. In 1852 the question had become so serious and so perilous to public health that this House passed an Act under which burial grounds were to be established by local authorities. Unfortunately, they were established not as a social service but as a trading service, and the local authorities were authorised to charge such sums as would suffice to make them pay. From that date the worst aspects of pauper burial and of graves into which 20 or even 30 bodies were flung, or, according to the authentic records of this House, even rammed with a steel rammer in order to get as many bodies into a single grave as they could.
From that horror arises the shame and the further horror of the pauper funeral, which is directly connected with the decision of this House to make cemeteries into a trading service. From 1852 and to this day, as long as there is room in the churchyard of the parish to which a man belongs, every Englishman has the right at common law to free burial, subject only to the cost of breaking the ground, payable to the sexton, and the fee for reading the prayers, payable to the parson; but it is very different in the case of a cemetery. There the executors of the deceased have to buy the grave and if the deceased had the misfortune, as many hundreds of thousands of people have had since the War, to die in a parish in which he was not a resident, being perhaps a transferee from the north of England, and application is made for burial in the public cemetery, the executors are told, "No, you may not bury your father here, except on payment of double fees." That is because they are strangers. That abominable aspect of burial remains. You may bury your relatives in ground to which you are technically a stranger only if you pay double fees, which may amount to as much as £10. The result is that scores of thousands of people, born and bred in the north of England, have come to the South and been buried in a common grave because they could not afford the fees charged by public authorities to strangers.
Even to those who are not strangers, costs have gone up by at least 50 per cent. since the War. I have been at some pains to ascertain the facts, and it is within my knowledge that the average price which local authorities have had to pay for land for the creation of cemeteries has often been nearer £2,000 than £1,000 per acre. In order to recoup themselves for the cost thus incurred they have had to charge very high fees, and even then there has been, in most cases, a loss to the rates. I say all this merely as introduction, in order that the House may realise that the issue which we are discussing is important, far transcending the importance of the particular Bill.
The promoters of the Bill decided to build a central laundry. I do not propose to deal with the question of whether a central laundry is or is not desirable; indeed, I do not conceive that subject to be one which can most conveniently be discussed here. It can be discussed, if anywhere, in Committee. The promoters decided to do so upon a site acquired for cemetery purposes 40 years ago by what is now the Carshalton Urban District Council. The promoters declare that this is, if not the only, then the most suitable, site. Kingston, Wimbledon, Merton, Mitcham, Sutton, Cheam, Beddington, Wallington and Morden have been, it is said, scoured in vain; this site and this alone will meet the requirements of a central laundry. It is close by a reservoir. Some sites were rejected by the chief laundry officer, a most particular person, because they were damp and foggy. Apparently dampness and fogginess are a peculiar disadvantage in dealing with washing, in which case the washing in Southern England must indeed be defective.
The chief laundry officer has said that the site must be perfectly flat and 600 feet by 400 feet. It must be near main sewers and water lines, for it requires no less than 250,000 gallons a day, an amount which is adequate to supply a fair-sized town of 10,000 or 15,000 inhabitants. It must be near electricity mains. He piled on his requirements to a point which makes one wonder how any industry ever managed to establish itself anywhere in Surrey except on this sole site which was selected for the laundry. I question very much whether a central laundry is a desir-

able thing and whether it is desirable to concentrate all one's washing, however dirty and although it is from four hospitals, upon a single site, several miles away from the respective hospitals, in order to centralise it, bearing in mind always that it is necessary to have 250,000 gallons a day from a single reservoir. My laundry-expert friend tells me that that quantity is grotesquely high and that has received confirmation by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller), who stated that 250,000 pieces will be washed at the laundry per week, which means one gallon per article. I am told that that quantity is greatly in excess of the normal requirements. I cannot but think that the chief laundry officer, expert as he is, was perhaps swinging the lead a bit.
The population of the area is increasing and the motor bus services are admittedly model in character. My hon. Friend has insisted that the laundry must be close to the existing housing estate at St. Helier. It is true that the district is increasing in population and that new housing estates are being made in half-a-dozen different areas but, no, the laundry must be close to St. Helier, and nothing else will suffice. It does not occur to the Surrey County Council to do as thousands of employers already do in this country—make an arrangement with the local omnibus company to provide a service which, for 1d. or 2d., will take people the mile or so necessary to bring them to the job, and back. That is being done all over England to-day, to my personal knowledge, and to a great extent in my own constituency, with excellent results. "No," they say, "this site and this only in all Surrey is the one that we want." It must be flat. The chief laundry officer says that it must be flat. I know scores of laundries, great modern laundries which are two or three storeys high, which positively prefer sloping ground in order that the receipt of washing may take place on one floor and the delivery be looked after on another, but that is not good enough for the Surrey County Council. The site must be flat. I can only think that this is a case of an official expert, regardless of any other interests than those of his own department, using the official machinery of the county council, and, if he gets his way here, the official machinery of this House, in order to save perhaps a few thousand pounds in planning a laundry. There is


not the smallest doubt in my mind that suitable sites could be found somewhere in Surrey.
However that may be, the selection of this site has necessitated the provision of an alternative site for a cemetery for Carshalton. Two sites were available, one at Woodmansterne, close to Carshalton, and already belonging to the county council. It is secluded, and only in July, 1937, was regarded as thoroughly suitable in all respects for a cemetery; but it is in the area of the Sutton Water Company, and not far from—I use the words of the official evidence—although not within, the company's gathering grounds. It is on chalk. For that reason, and with no evidence whatever that a cemetery on chalk could conceivably endanger the water supply, the site was rejected. My second submission is that the county council were wrong in rejecting this site on those grounds. The Ministry of Health have been good enough to provide me with their official circular which deals with the sanitary requirements of burial grounds, and this is how they describe an ideal site for a cemetery:
The soil of a burial ground should preferably be of an open and porous nature, with numerous close interstices through which air and moisture may pass, in a finely divided state, freely in every direction. In such a soil, decay proceeds rapidly, and the products of decomposition are absorbed or oxidised. The soil should be easily worked, and yet not so loose as to render the work of excavation dangerous through liability to falls of earth. It should be free from water or hard rock to a depth of not less than 4 feet 3 inches.
In other words, chalk is the ideal formation for a cemetery, and there are, not hundreds, but thousands of graveyards and churchyards, and some hundreds of cemeteries, established at the present time on chalk within the gathering grounds of the Metropolitan Water Board, the Lee Conservancy Board, the New River Company, and half-a-dozen other water companies to my knowledge. If it is to go forth from this House that it is very undesirable ever to have a cemetery upon chalk, we are going to create a very dangerous precedent indeed. Apparently we are going to allow it to be said that, owing to public anxiety—which in point of fact was unjustified—consequent upon the Croydon epidemic, which was due, as everyone now knows, to a typhoid carrier using the well itself as a lavatory, it is not safe to put a cemetery on chalk, not only within the gathering ground of a

water company, but anywhere near it. The proposition is grotesque, for we have thousands of square miles of chalk in this country.
I have been through the whole of the records of every inquiry by the Ministry of Health or its predecessors into the occurrence of typhoid or any other epidemic which was alleged to be due to pollution of water, and in no single case have I found it alleged that a cemetery was, directly or indirectly, not responsible, but even accused of being responsible for, the pollution of wells. Moreover, I have been at pains to go through the evidence given before the Select Committees on the Burial Acts, and there again I have failed to find a single case where it has been urged that effluvia or moisture from a cemetery had been responsible for polluting a single public water supply, whether from a shallow or from a deep well. It is my firm conviction that the county council have really gone wrong in allowing themselves to be influenced by the temporary anxiety and the very ignorant comments in the public Press consequent on the Croydon epidemic. Giving evidence for the promoters, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) himself said that to place a cemetery there would create more apprehension than was really justifiable, and he added:
But the apprehension would exist, and, therefore, it would be quite wrong, in view of the objection of the Sutton Water Company, to place a cemetery there.
No geologist was called, and no medical officer of health. I have the honour myself to be a Fellow of the Geological Society of London, and I am convinced that, if any geologist or medical officer of health were called, they would reject out of hand any apprehension that the Sutton Water Company might have as to the possibility of any damage being done by a cemetery established, not within, but not far from, their gathering ground. It is a biological and physical impossibility that a cemetery outside a gathering ground could conceivably have the smallest effect upon the supply of water. It has never been suggested to my knowledge in any country in the world, and certainly not in this country. I have studied, as I have said, every recorded paper on the subject, and I am convinced that the county council, with the best of intentions, have allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by


public agitation. It was alleged at the inquiry that the Sutton Water Company had had trouble recently with water, but—I quote from the official report—
It was due, not to any fault in the chalk, but to a different cause entirely.
That seems to exclude altogether the suggestion that it was due to a fissure in the chalk, for the official report says that it was due, not to any fault in the chalk, but to a different cause entirely. That is in reply to question No. 157. The Woodmansterne plot was town-planned as a cemetery on the strength of eminent engineering opinion, which, in July, 1937, regarded it as eminently and absolutely safe and proper. That was stated in reply to question No. 154. It was alleged at the inquiry that the Ministry of Health had objected to the use of the site as a cemetery site, but no evidence was given as to this fact, and it is clear from the evidence of the hon. Member for South Shields that the county council were influenced wholly by unfounded popular fears.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member is talking about an inquiry. I have given no evidence at any inquiry.

Sir A. Wilson: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; it was before the Committee in another place, where these questions and answers were given. It was not an inquiry, but a committee. Had there been an inquiry before an expert, I do not doubt that the result of the inquiry would have been different from that which was arrived at upstairs. Had there been a public inquiry by the Ministry of Health, I do not doubt that the objection of the Sutton Water Company would have been overruled, if, indeed, they had ventured to make it. It is wholly without precedent, and wholly unjustified by any scientific knowledge that we have at our disposal. In spite of the jeers and jibes of the hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) at scientists, I think the public attach considerable weight to the views expressed by scientific men on subjects of this sort.

Sir R. Meller: I do not accept them as final.

Sir A. Wilson: My hon. Friend says that he does not accept them as final; nor do I. I think that the judge must be

this House and the lay public, with due regard to medical, scientific and legal opinions, not accepting these as final, but applying their own judgment to the case in point.
I turn now to the third point, namely, the use of the site at present proposed as a cemetery. It is fine, flat land. It is slightly elevated at the centre, and slopes slightly away from the centre on either side, thus making drainage a comparatively easy matter. I understand that it has a basis, not far below the surface, of heavy clay. It is to be used as a cemetery. This is what the Ministry of Health's circular—the latest available circular—says of a site for a cemetery:
A dense clay is laborious to work and difficult to drain By excluding moisture and air, it retards decay, and it retains in a concentrated state the products of decomposition, sometimes to be discharged into graves opened in the vicinity, or sometimes to escape through cracks in the ground to the surface.
In other words, this site, although I am perfectly aware that areas nearby have been allocated to a cemetery, is of the type officially described by the Ministry of Health as being thoroughly unsuitable for a cemetery, although in case of need it might be necessary to use such a site. In other words, so far from having selected the best available site, they have chosen the worse of the two sites, and that with their very able eyes wide open, for I cannot imagine that this circular is not already in their possession. The site is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) has explained, ideal for playing fields. It is close to an elementary school, which has already, I gather, been provided with a certain amount of playing grounds—

Sir R. Meller: Part of this ground also is allocated for the provision of a playing ground.

Sir A. Wilson: It is close to the site of an elementary school—

Mr. Ede: Part of the 31 acres that will be included will he for the school and playing fields, and, unless the Bill goes through, the school and playing fields will not be able to be provided.

Sir A. Wilson: It will not be difficult, I fancy, to draft a fresh Bill, as the school is not required this year.

Mr. Ede: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): We shall get on better if the hon. Member is allowed to make his speech. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will have an opportunity later.

Sir A. Wilson: It is proposed to provide this site, part of which will be allocated for a cemetery and part for a school. There are plenty of alternative sites in neighbouring areas, and it should be possible to have a joint burial board for the whole of Surrey, so that anybody can be buried in the cemetery nearest without this filthy business of charging double fees for people coming from another area. That is a disgrace. Such a scheme has been proposed, and it has only broken down because the Merton and Morden Urban Council said they had enough land to bury their people, and would not come into any other scheme or allow any of their ground for the burial of people from outside their own area. That is the rottenest sort of parochialism; it is parish pump politics at its worst. There is no hurry for this cemetery. The existing cemetery at Carshalton will do for the next five years at least. There is no necessity for the laundry to be placed on this site. There is an alternative site available at Woodmansterne. The county council could not do better than take heart from what they have heard to-day and announce that they propose to put the cemetery at Woodmansterne and the laundry wherever they like. Then they can think again, take far more trouble than they have yet taken, and consider the whole cemetery position in Surrey, which is far from satisfactory, and draft a Bill to prevent the disgrace of people dying in one part of Surrey and not being able to he buried a quarter of a mile away within the boundaries of another authority.

8.48 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I desire to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller). Anybody who has sat through this Debate might be pardoned for imagining that there is nothing more that can be said on the subject of this Bill, but there are one or two small points which I would like to put. If there had been no provision for open spaces or playing fields in the vicinity, I would willingly join with my hon. Friend the

Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) and ask that this space should be preserved for playing fields; but it seems to me that when the hon. Member for Swindon complains that public authorities do not do their duty in providing open spaces he might at least make an exception in favour of the Surrey County Council, which I think everybody will admit has been a model for all other local authorities in the way in which it has managed to provide open spaces and preserve amenities in an area which has been rapidly built up. I would like to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for the way he has helped the people of Surrey to preserve the beauties of Surrey for themselves and their children.
The fact is that although it is essential to provide open spaces and playing fields in a densely built-up area there are other things which must also be provided. Firstly, there must be proper provision of schools, and nowadays, quite rightly I think, parents feel strongly about it if their children have to go any great distance to school. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that if the Bill fails to get a Second Reading another school site can be found elsewhere, but there is no other suitable school site in the vicinity of this area—an area which is being rapidly built up. Therefore part of this space is intended for something very necessary in the interests of people living in the district, in alluding to whom the hon. Member for Swindon has said that they must have proper facilities for recreation. So they must, but they must also have proper facilities for the education of their children. With all their schools the Surrey County Council try to provide adequate recreational facilities for the children. On this site there will be four acres of the most level part of the site where children can play. Indeed the site taken as a whole is not quite the level plain which some speakers would seem to suggest. One end of it is 20 feet higher than the other.
The hon. Member for Swindon made great play with the fact that the owner of the site is desirous of maintaining it as an open space and handing it on, when he himself passes on, as an open space or playing field; but in the four years during which the county council were conducting negotiations with him on the


subject of purchase he never disclosed that he would like the site to be an open space or a playing field. It was not until the petition was presented that the fact was disclosed that he feels that it should be preserved for all time as an open space. The hon. Member for Swindon also informed us that the owner feels that it should not be a cemetery; but in that connection may I say that immediately adjacent to the south-west corner of the site is an area of 34 acres which was acquired by the Merton and Morden Urban Council from the owner for a cemetery, and which is now being used as a cemetery. The owner can have no objection, therefore to a cemetery qua cemetery being placed on his land. The hon. Member has not told us who is to find the money to make this a playing-field. He must admit that the Surrey County Council have been very generous in the way they have put their hands into their pockets—incidentally into the ratepayers' pockets—to provide open spaces and playing fields in this district. There are 500 acres of them within a mile of this site. The hon. Member made great play at the beginning of his speech with the argument that people in central London should be able to come down into this district and find facilities for recreation. Later he complained that part of this 500 acres of open space was not available for local people. He cannot have it both ways. Either the whole of this space should be reserved for local people, or it should be preserved for people coming from another district.

Mr. Wakefield: Both.

Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member says "Both." Well, I contend that they have got it. I have made a rough calculation and I find that of the 539 acres which are now open recreational spaces within one mile of this site, 205 acres are preserved for playing grounds and recreation grounds by private corporations such as the B.B.C., the Westminster Sports ground, and so on. That leaves 334 acres which are public open spaces. The 185 acres of the Morden Park Golf Club and the Joseph Hood Memorial Playing Fields are public open spaces. That is an indication that you have provision for both public and private open spaces. More than half is earmarked for the public and less than half is provided for other people

from a distance. The hon. Member who has just sat down referred to the Woodmansterne site on which he said the cemetery could go. With what he said about the difficulties attendant upon the burial of poor people, I have the greatest sympathy. The fees charged to poor people at the present time for burial in cemeteries are, as he said, a disgrace. The site at Woodmansterne is on a hill which slopes down to the valley, in which are situated pumping stations for the Sutton District Water Company. Whatever the scientists may say about the possibility of contamination of the water in wells by the provision of a burial ground, local opinion in the district has a right to be heard. I am certain that the opinion of those who live in that area, following upon the shock which the typhoid epidemic in Croydon gave to them, would be dead against the provision of a cemetery in that particular spot in Woodmansterne. It is a place which I happen to know particularly well. It is a very short distance from where I lived for many years.
I do not think that the question of the Woodmansterne site should really concern this House. The site which it is proposed to make into a cemetery is eminently suitable for a cemetery, and it is close to two other cemeteries. I understand—and I believe quite rightly—the hon. Member who has just spoken believes that, if one could get cremation in this country, it would be a very good thing. May I point out to him that, if this Bill passes, there will be a big enough burial authority to make it possible for that authority to set up a crematorium, and so, if he is keen upon the provision of crematoria, his opportunity is now plain to him—he should vote for this Bill, because through the Bill it might be possible to obtain a crematorium in that particular area.

Mr. Fleming: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that there will be three cemeteries in this particular area and also a school. How far will the proposed school be from these cemeteries?

Sir A. Southby: The proposed school, if this area is developed, as the county council desire it to be, will be alongside one cemetery, and at a distance, on the far side from the school will be another cemetery. I canot tell the exact distance from the third one. There may be some


Members of this House whose objection to the Bill might be found to lie along the line of objection to possible municipal trading enterprises on the part of the Surrey County Council. I confess that on first considering the Bill I had fears on that score myself. I do not think that any Member of this House could accuse me of being in favour of municipal trading or municipal enterprises as such. That fear is completely unfounded. I believe that every big hospital finds it not only necessary, but hygienic and in the interest of the public to run its own laundry in order to deal with hospital washing I do not think that any of us like the idea that the washing from a large hospital should go through a public laundry where the clothes of the ordinary general public are dealt with. It is far better, safer and more hygienic that the hospital laundry should be part of the hospital. In fact, the big hospitals of London, certainly St. George's Hospital, run their own laundries. The Surrey County Council are an authority who have to run, not one, but several hospitals, and they have for some years past maintained laundries in various parts of Surrey which deal with the washing from the hospitals and the institutions. There is no departure in this Bill from what has been going on for a considerable time. Therefore, there is no question of the Surrey County Council all of a sudden starting to run a laundry as something they have never done before. If this Bill does not pass, very necessary enlargements and alterations to the hospitals at Epsom and at Kingston will have to be postponed, because in order to make these enlargements and alterations the existing laundry accommodation for these two hospitals will have to be pulled down.
The new hospital at Wrythe Lane which is in course of construction is limited as regards the site upon which it is placed, and it is impossible to find room on that site for a laundry unless the quarters for the nurses are curtailed. I do not think that there is a Member in this House who does not desire to ensure that, wherever a new hospital is built, one of the first things that should be seen to is the adequate provision of comfortable quarters for the nurses who serve the hospital. Therefore, if this new hospital at Wrythe Lane is to be what we want it to be, the question of quarters for the nurses must

take precedence of the provision of a laundry, and therefore provision for the laundry must be made elsewhere. The most suitable site which can be found at the present time for that laundry is the site which is mentioned in the Bill. That laundry is not going to embark in any way upon municipal trading as such. It is only going to deal with the washing which comes from the hospitals and the institutions over which the Surrey County Council have direction. There is no question of competing with any private laundry for any contract for washing. I will not enlarge upon what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend on the subject of the difficulty of obtaining either a fair price or a contract from existing laundries to deal with the washing from the hospitals, except to reiterate once more than I believe that washing from hospitals should not go through public laundries.
I suggest to the House that there is really no objection to the passage of this Bill. All of us want to see adequate playing-fields and the maximum amount of open space preserved for the health and recreation of the public. All these things have been met, as far as they be met, by the Surrey County Council. We all of us feel that there must be proper educational facilities, and the Surrey County Council are doing what they can in the best possible way to meet the educational needs of a growing district. There is not a soul in this House who would not agree that, in putting up this laundry, the Surrey County Council are doing something which is for the good, not only of the sick, who will be tended in their hospitals, but something to safeguard the health of the community outside. The laundry will provide work for a considerable number of people who live in a district adjacent to this laundry and who are certainly deserving of consideration. In the built-up are of St. Hellier, where the main labour for this loundry will be obtained, there are many people who are anxious to find employment. On all grounds I submit that the House will be well advised to give this Bill a Second Reading.

9.5 P.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): This is a Private Bill and the Government take no part in it as such, but it is for the convenience of the House that the


Department within whose ambit the Bill falls should indicate the atitude which the Minister takes. As to the general purpose underlying the Bill, the provision of a centralised laundry, it is agreed that that is desirable. The principle of private laundry facilities for hospitals is an accepted one and the centralising of these facilities in Surrey is a rational development. It frees more space for hospital purposes proper and leads to economy and easy administration. Therefore, no issue of principle seems to arise, in this regard, out of the Bill.
The next point is where to put the centralised laundry. The county council's contention is that it must be somewhere in the north-eatsern part of the country. I think that can be agreed. It is here that important hospital development is taking place, and, generally, that seems the suitable area. The choice of the particular site, however, has caused considerable trouble. Both councils think that the proposed arrangement—whereby the Surrey County Council buy this land and exchange it with Carshalton's present burial land—is the best practicable solution. That involves two issues, (1) whether the proposed sites are respectively suitable to be taken for laundry and cemetery purposes and (2) whether it is right for the county council to buy compulsorily land which they require, only to give in exchange for other land earmarked for their purpose.
As to the first point, the suitability of the sites and whether those sites as opposed to any others ought to be taken for these purposes, is eminently the sort of question for which the Committee system of this House has been devised. It is impossible for us to go into these technical and Committee points here. They ought to be examined with full knowledge of the local circumstances, where plans can be produced, where maps can be gone over and examined, and where witnesses can be called and examined. That procedure is eminently suitable for the Committee stage. It is worth while noting that this Bill is, technically, an unopposed Bill which goes to the Unopposed Bills Committee, which is recruited from a panel appointed each year by the Selection Committee. The Committee consists of three members of the panel, who usually sit with the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means as Chairman, and it is advised

by Mr. Speaker's Counsel as assessor. That Unopposed Bills Committee is of a continuing nature. Its membership is much the same every year, and it has been able to acquire considerable experience of local government issues and is thus as well qualified as any Committee of this House to satisfy itself as to the merits of any proposal put before it and, after hearing evidence, to come to a decision.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Whose evidence has the right hon. Gentleman in mind?

Mr. Elliot: Any evidence which the Committee requires to satisfy itself. As to point No. 2, the question of acquiring land only in order to give it in exchange may seem to be more a Second Reading issue. It does not, however, in this particular case seem to be open to much criticism. If the sites are suitable, and it is for the Committee to advise us on that, this method of arranging for their acquisition seems natural enough. The Carshalton site for the laundry, is one on which both councils are agreed and in which no other parties are involved. Carshalton, if they are to give up that site, must have an alternative burial ground, and they could promote a Bill for that purpose—they have promoted Bills in the past—but it was the county council's need that necessitated the new arrangements, and they have saved Carshalton the cost and trouble of promoting the Bill. From the point of view of the lands affected, this makes no material difference.
The Bill has passed through the other House, and was referred to a Select Committee where the case for and against the Bill was put forward. After considering all the arguments it was decided that the Bill should go on. There is no reason why we should deny the promoters the opportunity of having this Bill examined in detail by a Committee of this House. It is true that the Bill was introduced late. The present scheme arose from a long consideration of ways and means by the council and, once having evolved it, they wish to proceed without delaying matters until next Session. The case for allowing it as a late Bill has been approved through the appropriate machinery of the House. Therefore, generally speaking, I think the Bill does not seem to raise any major question of principle for discussion at this stage. The essential issue raised by it is whether this particular piece of land


in this particular district is the right site to take, so as to allow a perfectly proper public purpose of the county council to be carried out. That seems essentially a Committee point. Therefore, I recommend the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow these matters to be considered in detail by the Committee procedure which over a long period of years the House has found suitable for the purpose.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I was hoping that before I spoke I should have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom I always regard as the outstanding representative in this House of the Surrey County Council, although the north country is privileged to regard him as one of its Members of Parliament. I am frankly critical of this Bill. Even though the Minister has told us that the idea of these centralised laundries is a well-established practice, I should personally rather enjoy the task of examining their accounts. I am always told that if you centralise things they become more economical, because you eliminate overhead expenses, but I find that, in the long run, all the centralised things are the most expensive. We are told from time to time that when two boroughs amalgamate or when one borough incorporates a smaller local authority, on account of the amalgamation there will he savings of overhead expenses, and everything will be better for everybody; but the real truth is that the larger the unit of population for local government the more costly it is to run the job.
I would suggest to hon. Members that they might fill in one of the green slips in the Vote Office and obtain a copy of the document, "Rates and Rateable Vaiues," which throws a most interesting light upon the extravagance of a number of the larger local authorities. Therefore, when I am told that centralisation is an economy, I frankly do not believe it. This Government and preceding Governments have caused a lot of concerns to be amalgamated, and every one of them is financially a failure. Cable and Wireless for example, and the main line railways. In all these, the centralisation principle fails. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman tells me that centralisation is a long-established principle, I suggest that it was established at the same time as the

principle of amalgamating railways was established, and I am not very much impressed.
I have tried to get some information about this laundry business. The only thing that has impressed me in the Debate was the statement by the hon. and gallant Member who represents Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who said that people who sent their clothes to private laundries did not like the idea of things from hospitals going there. That is the only argument adduced that has impressed me. I was not much impressed by my hon. Friend and neighbouring colleague who represents Mitcham (Sir R. Meller), when he spoke about the large number of Surrey's open spaces. That is not so much due to the county council. A lot of those open spaces and playing-fields are distant from where the people live.

Sir R. Meller: I do not think the hon. Member was in the House when I spoke.

Mr. Williams: I was present.

Sir R. Meller: I pointed out that a very large proportion of those open spaces are easily accessible to the people of London.

Mr. Williams: I was in the House when the hon. Member was dealing with that point. I should not have raised the issue if I had not heard the hon. Member.

Sir R. Meller: There are other sources of information.

Mr. Williams: It is not as though this county council is one whose efficiency I admire. They are proposing to do this laundry work by what is called direct labour. For my sins or for my pleasure I have to travel to a place called Mickleham, where the Surrey County Council have been building a by-pass. They are at least eight months late in completing it, and I am told that they have done it on the good old Socialist principle of direct labour. I am looking forward to the time when the Minister of Transport will tell us how much extra it has cost. Surrey is not a very economically governed county. There are only two counties in Great Britain whose inhabitants have to pay more than those of Surrey, where it costs £5 per head, man, woman and child, to live. It is quite true that under the influence of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) it is more costly to live in the county of London, and Middlesex,


which also has a certain amount of Socialist inspiration, is 4s. dearer than Surrey. Those who live in the county of Wiltshire can do so for £3 a head.
I mention this because this kind of public extravagance, which I deplore without very much help from anyone else, although there will be plenty of help in 18 months' time, in order to draw attention to the fact that the county council which proposes to spend this money is one which exists at great cost to the inhabitants of Surrey. It may be that this scheme is right and that the only place Carshalton has to bury its dead is to come nearer to the centre instead of moving to the circumference. They are not necessarily bound to have the cemetery in their own area, but I should have thought that by moving in the other direction they might have obtained an alternative solution. I am not very much impressed by the document issued by the Surrey County Council. There is a certain lack of candour about it. It says that the owner of the land refused to entertain any sale by agreement for a burial ground. That is the description of a bigoted landlord, not a landlord who was refusing to consent for a very definite reason of public health. Anyone who took the trouble to read the London evening papers of about six months ago knows perfectly well what the reason was. There were lengthy interviews in the London Press on this matter and pictures illustrating the situation. All that has been forgotten, and the Surrey County Council in this brief completely conceals from this House what were the grounds of refusal. They merely picture this old gentleman as an awkward and cantankerous old gentleman.
Then again there is a lack of candour in the last paragraph, in which they say that no petition has been presented against the Bill in the House of Commons. A petition was presented in the other House, and it is a costly process to present a petition to the House of Commons. When the burden has to fall on a single individual I am not surprised that he felt he could not afford to present a petition. A document like this is not entirely candid to hon. Members who are not familiar with the facts, and I think that when a public authority at the public expense provides a document like this for the guidance of

this honourable House they might add a little more of the truth in order that we should have a rather fuller appreciation of the real position.
I propose to comment on something which the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom said. I am a little surprised that the hon. and gallant Member should say that the owner of the land did not say that he wanted to preserve it as an open space until he presented his petition in another place. I know that the hon. and gallant Member said that in all good faith, but as the owner's position was ventilated to the whole world many months ago, long before the Bill was presented and before the time when he was faced with the demand of the county council, it really is not fair to say that he revealed his attitude only after the Bill had been presented. I know that the hon. and gallant Member did not say this on his own initiative. The county council has drilled all the members for Surrey thoroughly well. They are all on duty. It really amuses me that when any local Bill is brought forward the local Member always thinks he has to agree with his local authority. That is an abrogation of the exercise of free judgment. He does so because he is sent for by the mayor of a borough and told what he has to do.

Mr. Emmott: Sent for?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Well, invited; there is a suggestion that they should all meet. Quite sincerely if I thought that this great administrative county was doing its work with the maximum of efficiency I should look at the Bill in a more friendly way, but I do not think they are. They are tending to be extravagant. They are among the most extravagant local authorities in the country, but always the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) can show the most extravagant local authority.

Mr. Ede: What about the Croydon Borough Council?

Mr. Williams: I am dealing with them, and I have already explained to them in a way in which perhaps the hon. Member will deal with his own local authority. Local authorities are coming forward year after year asking Parliament to sanction schemes which are costly, and yet whenever there is any protest about the growth of local government expenditure


we always hear that it is not their fault but the fault of Parliament which thrusts these duties upon them. Here is a local authority asking to have this expenditure thrust upon it by Parliament. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) is going to do, but having regard to the advice tendered by the Minister, which it is perhaps wise to accept on these occasions, he perhaps will not press his Amendment to a Division. I say that for this reason—the object of a debate on Second Reading is to emphasise things in a Bill which at first sight seem to some hon. Members to be undesirable. If the Bill contains some great fundamental principle which excites great controversy, then that is a Bill suitable for debating on Second Reading, and for defeating if you possibly can; but it is impossible to say that the question whether there should or should not he a centralised laundry is a fundamental principle of that kind, because the Minister has told us that such things have already been approved in the past. Therefore on the ground of that fundamental principle it is impossible for my hon. Friend to take that stand.
It is also not a question of fundamental principle what piece of land the building should occupy: that is obviously a matter for detailed consideration. But if a particular choice raises issues of importance of the kind that has been raised by this Bill to-night, it is a good thing that the Bill should be debated on Second Reading, so that when it goes before the Committee upstairs, and more particularly when it goes before the Unopposed Bills Committee, where the opponents will not be present, that Committee has the guidance which arises from a Debate in the House. The Committee is aware that the matter does excite public interest, and therefore naturally the Committee, as in duty bound, will give to the controversial aspects of a Bill a greater scrutiny than it would if there had been no protest whatever. To say that is not to reflect on the admirable way in which the Unopposed Bills Committee does its business. But I do think that, having regard to the Debate which has taken place, and to the views expressed by the Minister, my hon. Friend would be wise not to ask the House to vote on his Amendment and should ask leave to withdraw it.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should not have thought myself that a county council Bill on this very limited issue could have given so many Members an opportunity of riding their hobby horses as this one has done. We have heard from the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) about Ilkley Moor which is a very long way from Surrey, we have heard from the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) about the origin of modern cemeteries, and we have finally had a speech from the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) about extravagance in general, winding up—in a way which always reminds the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that he once sat there himself and can do their jobs so much better than they can—by tendering advice to the hon. Member for Swindon. I can only hope that the hon. Member for Swindon will take good advice, even when it comes from a bad quarter, and that he will realise that his hon. Friend has had some experience of the Front Bench and is particularly well qualified to interpret its oracular attitude to the minds of humbler people sitting behind them.
I want first to make this point with regard to the laundries. The population of Surrey during the past ten years has grown tremendously. Every year the equivalent of a town of about 40,000 people is added to the population, and this has been concentrated in the area around London. There are two existing Poor Law institutions which have laundries, Epsom and Kingston, both of which institutions came into existence immediately after the passing of the Poor Law Act, 1834. Their present premises are quite insufficient to deal with the demands of the far larger population that now lives round them, and it is essential that the land now occupied by the laundries there should be used for general hospital and Poor Law purposes. The laundries are antiquated, and it is desirable in the interests of efficiency that they be brought up to date. The erection of a new hospital at St. Helier has afforded the council an opportunity of concentrating this work, and I do not think that any prudent local authority would do other than establish a laundry to deal with the work from these three institutions.
When it came to the question of a site we were faced with this problem in


Surrey, that it is very difficult to find a site near a population that is likely to provide a sufficiency of the kind of labour that is needed. But there was established by the London County Council a big housing estate, housing some 40,000 people, in a district where there is very little employment available, and it seemed tfhat we should be carrying on the work that the London County Council had done if we established near their housing estate, where there was little employment, some industry that would demand a fair quantity of labour of a kind that was not otherwise being utilised. For that reason this land near the St. Helier estate seemed to be suitable. Carshalton Urban Council had acquired in 1898 a site for a cemetery, but in the intervening years that site has been so closely built up that it has become no longer suitable as a cemetery site. It is, however, the most advantageous site for this laundry; and, while it is true that you can build a laundry of two or three storeys, anyone who can avoid doing so will do so.
The 12 acres that are available at this old cemetery site were admirably situated, and have all the characteristics that were desired for an efficient laundry. Carshalton Urban Council are perfectly willing to part with the land to the county council provided that they can get alternative land; but when they went to the Minister of Health they were told that because he had sanctioned this site in 1898 as a cemetery, he could not sanction its use for any other purpose; nor could he give his sanction to the disposal of it, and he could not sanction their getting other land while the existing sanction on the present land was in existence.
There was thus a complete impasse. But for that impasse the House would not have been worried with this Bill at all. It is merely to deal with this highly technical point in local government law and administration that these two councils have been compelled to come here this evening. The hon. Member for Hitchin mentioned some questions that were put to me in cross-examination by Sir Patrick Hastings in Committee in another place, because it must not be thought that this Bill went through another place by default. Sir Patrick Hastings after all is a leading counsel and has been Attorney-General, and the fact that he was brought in opposition to

a Bill so small as this indicates that the Bill in the first House was properly fought by the opponents. In the course of that cross-examination I was asked some questions, but the hon. Member, in reading my evidence, might also have mentioned the line of cross-examination which was adopted against me by Sir Patrick Hastings with regard to the proper use of this land. Sir Patrick did not suggest that it ought to be an open space. He said, "It is now used for grazing; will it not be a hardship on the proprietor of this dairy holding if he is expropriated?" At that time he did not suggest in cross-examination that this was suitable land for playing-fields at all, and the hon. Member for Swindon has no guarantee that a cricket ball will ever be bowled on this land, or a football kicked. All that the present owner wants to do is to preserve it unbuilt on for his lifetime. The hon. Member for Swindon has had an interview with him.

Mr. Wakefield: I am suggesting that the Surrey County Council ought to preserve it for all time, by town-planning, as an open space.

Mr. Ede: The Surrey County Council is not the town-planning authority for the area. The area in which the land s situated is that of the borough of Malden and Coombe, and that borough has already purchased, as public open space, over 21 per cent. of its own area. After all, it will become very difficult for some of these local authorities who are preserving as much as one-fifth of their own area if the House is going to say that, having done that, they are to purchase this land, as the hon. Member wants, for Greater London.

Mr. Wakefield: I did not say that they should purchase it. I said that they should town-plan it.

Mr. Ede: If it is town-planned as an open space, let us consider what will happen then. The hon. Member will agree with me that the present owner's life is not worth many years' purchase. The hon. Member has seen him, and I have. He survived me all right, but the hon. Member saw him after me. I do not suggest his death will be cause and effect. I put it to the hon. Member for Swindon that the most that the present owner will say with regard to this or any other land in his ownership is that he will undertake that during his life-


time it will not be built on. He told me, in relation to other land that was ultimately purchased as an open space by the joint action of the Surrey County Council, the London County Council and the Merton and Morden Urban District Council: "My father left me this estate unencumbered, and his advice to me was that I should never do anything in my lifetime that would place any bar upon what my successor might do with the land when it got to him; that is the principle I have always maintained, and it is the principle I will continue to maintain."
The hon. Member for Swindon then proceeded to deal with the relationship of this land to the National Fitness Movement. As the hon. Member knows very well, the chairman of the London and Middlesex Committee has arranged with the chairmen of the surrounding committees that where land in their area is required for London, he will consult with them with regard to it. Sir Wyndham Deedes, the chairman of the London and Middlesex Committee, is a man who has been looking all round for land. He has never put this piece of land up to us for consideration. If he had done so, the Joint Committee would have met at once and would have considered it. No one, apart from the hon. Member for Swindon, has ever suggested this piece of land to us. The only level part of it is being taken for a school with its playing-fields, which are to be available for some other schools of the district. The remainder of the land has a fall of 20 feet. I always objected to bowling uphill.

Mr. Wakefield: If the hon. Member will permit me to interrupt him, I looked at this land to be sure that it would he suitable for playing-fields. It has a very nice, gentle curve which is natural drainage. It is just the sort of surface one wants for playing-fields.

Mr. Ede: I can only hope that when the hon. Gentleman used to play football, and his captain lost the toss, so that the hon. Member had to kick uphill during the last part of the game he consoled himself with the thought that it was a nice gentle curve which was natural drainage. When my captain used to put me on to bowl uphill, I always thought that I should have done better if I had been allowed to change ends. This land, without considerable expenditure, cannot

be adapted for playing-fields for the adolescents and adults for whom the hon. Member pleaded. Hon. Members have had the opportunity this evening of voicing their pet projects, and I hope that has been some consolation to those who have spoken; but I am bound to say that I have never heard a case presented by the opponents of a Bill which has been farther away from the exact facts than this one. I hope the House will realise that it would not have been called upon to deal with this Bill except for the highly technical point which arose with regard to the exchange of these two pieces of land for a cemetery.
With regard to the placing of cemeteries on chalk, no matter what the hon. Member for Hitchin may say, there is very considerable feeling on the part of the population now being concentrated on the Northern side of the North Downs that the great gathering grounds for their water supplies ought to be preserved from all possible contamination. These great fissures go up to the chalk, and nobody knows until a well is sunk exactly where it is going to hit one. It may easily drop into one only a few feet below the surface in ground in which decomposing matter may go through the chalk, and drop into the underground streams that supply that great population.
When I gave my evidence before the Committee in another place, I had that in mind. For over 20 years I have been a member of a local authority and for many years I was chairman of its water committee, which derived its water from this chalk bank. We lived in constant terror of what might happen through that possible contamination. This area has a right to be protected from the possible contamination of its water supply. Immediately on the south of Carshalton, within the boundaries of that parish, that great chalk ridge starts, and it stretches for six or seven miles southwards. South of Carshalton they can get a cemetery only on the chalk, and therefore I suggest that it is highly desirable, in view of public opinion in the locality, that the cemetery should be sited where it has been arranged.
After all, this is the sort of arrangement that local authorities are always being urged to make. They are urged to get together and to try to deal with their problems on a mutual basis. The Car-


shalton Urban Council and the Surrey County Council have done that, and had it not been for the highly technical point to which I have referred, the whole of this matter could have been arranged without the House being troubled about it, and no doubt some of the transactions could even have been carried through without the approval of the Minister of Health having to be sought. Consequently, I suggest that the advice which the Minister has tendered, that this Bill should go upstairs and there be examined, is advice which the House would do well to follow. If it should happen that that Committee should fail to do it justice—under the chairmanship of the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means it cannot be anticipated that other than the fullest inquiry will be given to the matter—or if it should emerge from Committee in a state which the House dislikes, there will still be the Report stage and the Third Reading, to which the House can take exception. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Swindon will feel that, having ventilated the subject at the length at which it has been, he can now agree to withdraw the Amendment, and allow the Bill to proceed.

9.45 P.m.

Mr. Lyons: I realise the work which has been done for a good many years by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in connection with local government in Surrey, and I hope he will not consider it any lack of courtesy on my part if I do not follow him on many of the matters with which he has dealt. Knowing his record of work for the Surrey County Council, none of us would desire to belittle the points which he has made or the attitude which he has taken up on this Bill, but there are one or two matters on which I think the House is entitled to enlightenment before coming to a decision. We have not been told, for instance, whether these proposals involve any additional cost to the already over-burdened ratepayers, and if so, to what amount. The ratepayers in Surrey, as in almost every other county to-day, labour under burdens which are becoming well-nigh intolerable, as one scheme after another is placed upon their shoulders by local authorities. We ought to be told therefore by some of the supporters of the Bill whether acceptance of its provisions means any additional charge on the rates,

and if so, what will be the extent of the additional charge.
I would make this complaint about the memorandum in support of the Bill, circulated by the Surrey County Council, that it lacks candour and does not give us a great deal of information which we ought to have. I think it only right to say that no such lobbying has been adopted on behalf of those who are opposed to the Measure. The memorandum deliberately omits to deal with several points and gives no estimate of cost. The hon. Member for South Shields said this was a limited issue, but I submit that that is not the right view to take of it. The issue is whether a local authority is to be allowed, whenever it likes and for whatever purpose it likes, to increase the ratepayers' burden without definitely substantiating a case for the increased cost. I do not know whether the ratepayers of Surrey will be satisfied at being asked to undertake another charge which might have been spared them. We are not told whether among the ratepayers of this county there are not proprietors of laundries which might help to do the work for which this central laundry is being erected. The hon. Member might tell us, for instance, what is the estimated cost of this special county laundry which is to be used exclusively for county work.

Mr. Ede: It will cost exactly as much as and no more than any alternative scheme. The county council is only doing what every public assistance authority has done, namely, arranging for its own laundry work to be done on its own premises. If this scheme is not passed, the county council will have to turn to some alternative scheme, and we are advised that the proposed scheme is the cheapest possible.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Do I understand that this laundry is to be used for dealing only with linen from the adjoining hospitals and that work is not to be brought into it from all over the county?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) had done me the honour of listening to me when he was conversing with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield), he would have heard me explain why it has become necessary to remove the existing laundries at Epsom and Kingston from their limited sites. Those places are about five


or six miles from the proposed site at Carshalton and the transport will not be a very heavy item, but it would be impossible to erect the hospital accommodation which is necessary at Epsom and Kingston and continue the laundries in those places.

Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but can the House be assured that this proposal will involve no additional cost to the rate-payers?

Mr. Ede: We are building a new hospital for 862 additional patients owing to the growth of the population of the county. Clearly, a laundry for that hospital will be an additional charge, and will have to be dealt with in this way or some other way. As regards the laundries at Epsom and Kingston, we believe that dealing with the work at Carshalton will be cheaper. Those institutions are over 100 years old and the buildings and equipment are antiquated and we are advised that by using modern machinery we shall be able to do the work at a substantial saving.

Mr. Lyons: The hon. Member's statement clarifies the position to some extent, but I would still remark that we are apparently being asked to impose an additional cost for this laundry on the ratepayers without having it established that it is essential and that there is no alternative. It may be said that it is a matter for the local authority to decide, but many local authorities do things without any justification at all, without rhyme or reason, and the ratepayers are committed—generally by Socialist councils—to expenditure which has no justification at all. I am not suggesting that this is a case in which that is being done. I am not trying to controvert what has been said by the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Member alluded to Socialist councils. As far as I know, and I think I can claim to know something about it, there are six Socialists on this council out of a membership of 104.

Mr. Lyons: If there is any misapprehension in the hon. Member's mind, let me remove it at once by saying that it is not only Socialist councils who are to blame in this respect. The blame attaches just as much to non-Socialist councils as to Socialist councils and I do not want to score any party point in that connec-

tion. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. This is not a Socialist council, but there are many instances of wanton and unjustifiable and extravagant burdens being put upon ratepayers by councils not of a Socialist composition. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) moved his Amendment in the hope that the House would not allow the Bill to proceed. Whether the Amendment is forced to a Division or not. I hope that in any case, if further consideration is to be given to the Bill, that it will be closely scrutinised on two substantial points. First, is this proposal essential and is there no alternative to it which would not impose a charge on the ratepayers; and secondly, is the additional cost involved one that can be accepted by this House? As I said, the ratepayers of the country, in both Socialist and non-Socialist areas, are being called upon to accept burdens which are becoming intolerable, and if my hon. Friend does not press his Amendment to a Division, I hope the points which have been raised, will be considered by those who are responsible for the detailed examination of these proposals.

Mr. Wakefield: Having regard to what has been said to-night, and to the fact that an opportunity has been given for ventilating this whole matter, and as there will be an opportunity of considering it in Committee upstairs, my friends and I do not propose to take this matter to a Division, but we should like to reserve our rights on the Report stage. With the leave of the House, I will therefore withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on Consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £32,502,330, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected therewith, including sundry grants in aid, and grants and expenses in connection with physical training and recreation.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £32,502,230, be granted for the said Service."

9.56 p.m.

Mr. A. Somerville: When the Debate was interrupted, I was going to put this point, that at the present time we have in the latest central schools pupils who ought to be in secondary schools, and in the secondary schools we have a good many pupils who ought to be in selected central schools, but, so far as I know, there is no means of transfer from one to the other. In the light of that fact, it is very interesting to note what has been done and is being done in France. The Minister of Public Instruction, M. Zay, last year passed a Bill to organise national instruction in France in three degrees, the first degree to be up to the age of 12, and the second degree from 12 to 18, but divided into two sections—12 to 15 and 15 to 18—and here comes the interesting experiment that they are making. At the beginning of the second degree, in the first class of the second degree, called the sixième classe, there is a picked staff, and that staff, in conjunction with the parents and with the inspectors, decide what is the best line of study for each of the pupils in that class. Then the section is divided into three sides, classical, modern, and technical, and according to the form and capacity and bent of each pupil, that pupil is placed in one of the three sides. That has the great advantage that you have the pupils together, and if, as time goes on, a pupil is found to be more suited, say, for the modern side than for the classical, he can be transferred. We cannot do that with our present system, and I recommend consideration of that point to the Parliamentary Secretary, though I know there are very great difficulties in the matter of salaries, which are not the same in the central schools as in the secondary schools.
I would add, with regard to secondary schools, that I think we should look to them to train leaders. I do not mean to say that you will not find leaders in the other schools—you will, as the pupils are developed—but in the main we want to develop leaders in the secondary schools, and to develop the power of leadership we have to develop a sense of responsibility, self-control, love of truth, and the power to face the results of truth—the development of the critical faculties so that

the mind can think for itself and not be led away by slogans. We know the slogan in Italy at the present time—"Believe, obey, fight." You have to cultivate the virtues of obedience and belief in order to be able to fight. It is interesting, in connection with that, to note what has been said by Aldous Huxley in his recent book "Ends and Means":
Truth and kindliness are held by a dictator to be virtues only in so far as they do not conflict with his aims.…… He openly declares that truth should be disregarded in national propaganda. He affirms that the end justifies the means, and the end is the triumph of a section of the human species over the rest. He inculcates minor virtues, such as obedience, physical courage, and fitness, but disparages the higher virtues, kindliness and love of truth, without which the minor virtues are merely instruments for doing evil with increased efficiency.
May I just add that I was delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say what he did about rural schools? It is a most satisfactory thing to find that the authorities of the Board are alive now to the great importance of efficient teaching of the right kind in our rural schools. He rightly said that the key to the efficiency of the rural schools is the teacher. If you want to get the rural schools to fulfil the end which they should fulfil, and that is to instil a love and knowledge of rural matters in the pupils, you must have teachers who care for the country, who care for things rural. I am glad to hear there are special courses for such teachers, but, if possible, recruit them from the land itself. On Empire Day, in the morning, I took part in a celebration at a country school in a part of my constituency with regard to which I owe gratitude to this House for having saved it from industrialisation, which would have been destructive of the character of the district. I refer to Waltham St. Lawrence and White Waltham. It was a great pleasure to see what went on at the school—the physical training, which was extremely well done, and the play, All this was in the open air, and one felt that here was real good work being done.
I would venture to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that two of the main things that are necessary in order to render the rural schools efficient are, first, what he said himself, the teacher, the right teaching, and then the provision of ground for gardens, for instance, and the teaching of gardening and the care of


country things. I was very glad to see at that school that the head teacher was particularly interested in that work, with very good results. Last year—and this is a propos of the village school being the centre of village life—in another part of the constituency, not very far off, they were so impressed with the need of preserving their school as a centre of village life that they collected nearly £2,000 in order to save the school. There, too, I am glad to say, there was sufficient land to teach gardening, and that activity was in full vigour. I will say no more except to express the hope that the Board will realise in an increasing degree the need for the encouragement and safeguarding of the rural schools at a time when it is so necessary to keep the rural population on the land.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fascinating developments that have taken place in elementary education in the past few years and paid a glowing tribute to the local education authorities for the way in which they are attempting to carry out their work. I want to deal with one aspect of the question which has not yet been touched on and in which the claims of the local education authorities have not received the considerations to which they are entitled. For many years the local authorities have been asking the Board of Education to appoint a committee to inquire into the question of grants. The need for such an inquiry has been made out time and time again. I used to wonder in my early days in educational administration what the purpose and meaning of the grant system were. I began to ask questions to find out how this peculiar system grew up, and I was never able to find anyone who could put it upon a basis that was understandable. There may be some Members of this Committee who understand it. If so, all I can say is that they are cleverer than the people who are administering education in the local authorities, for I have not found anyone who really understands it.
The Fisher formula, on which the present system is based, was intended to give a sort of fifty-fifty deal whereby the local authorities and the Government provided equal amounts. It does not work out exactly in that way, but it was intended that something like that should be the net result. The grant is 36s. per

scholar in average attendance plus a varied percentage for different things. It was, for instance, 60 per cent. for teachers' salaries, 50 per cent, for school medical services, and 20 per cent., raised at different times to 50 per cent., for building grants. Then we get an accumulation in later years. Travelling facilities, for instance, which have been spoken of as necessary in reorganisation, particularly in rural areas, rank for only 40 per cent. I wonder why there is this differentiation, except that it works all the time to the advantage of the Government. The proportion of the grant which the local authorities have been called upon to pay has been progressively increasing until to-day it can be said that it is nearer sixty-forty against the local authorities than the fifty-fifty it was originally intended to be. May I also call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that although the deficiency grant was abandoned in 1931 in order that the 10 per cent. reduction in teachers' salaries might accrue to the Government, the deficiency grant was not restored when the salaries were restored, so that something which was taken from the local authorities has never been returned.
That is what I call a new type of legislation by administration, administering out of existence something that was there. The same thing has happened with regard to maintenance grants. Children in elementary schools between 14 and 15 can be provided with maintenance allowances, but the Board have consistently refused to pay grants upon that expenditure. The authorities have the statutory right to make that expenditure, but the Board refuse to pay their proportion of it. We should have legislation as it is passed by this House and not as it is improved by administration. I wonder whether the time has come when we can have a new formula that can clearly be understood. All educational facilities are of the same fundamental value and if they can be justified at all they should rank for grants at the same rate. I see no reason why there should be a 20 per cent. grant for one thing that is reckoned to be essential, while another essential service ranks for 50 per cent. I believe that the Minister's continued refusal to grant this inquiry or to set up a Departmental Committee to go into the question is based upon the fact that the present system cannot be justified. It works against the


local authorities in two ways. There is, for instance, the 7d. rate which goes into the formula. All these varying percentages are calculated less a 7d. rate. That means that in the case of a local authority which is prepared to retain a low assessment, the 7d. rate brings in a lower figure. If there is an increase in the assessment it penalises the authority to the advantage of the Board. This system puts a temptation in the way of local authorities to adopt a lower assessment. The fact that we have a declining school population means of necessity that where the formula is based upon an average attendance, the local authorities must be suffering. The overhead charges remain, even though the school population goes down.
I am sorry it is not possible to develop the question of the size of classes. It can easily be shown that large classes are uneconomic. We have teachers fully trained and qualified, we spend a great deal of time and money in their training, and then we set them to address mass meetings in class rooms. It is like giving an artist a whitewash brush and expecting to get the best out of him. We are not doing justice to the teacher by expecting him to train such large numbers. It cannot be done, and I object to the waste of paying high salaries to individuals, who are well qualified to receive them, but who are not given the opportunity to get the best out of the children because we ask them to do too much. I ask that these questions should be taken more fully into consideration.
On the question of nursery schools, about which the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) spoke, there is an idea abroad in some quarters that the nursery school is to help the working-class mother and is only for the working-class child. I realise its value to the working-class mother and her child, but I contend that, from the standpoint of education, the only child of well-to-do parents will derive more advantages in later life from a nursery school training than will the child of the working classes, because sooner or later the child of the working class will mix among its own kind, whereas the nursery school provides the only opportunity which comes to many of these only children. Nursery classes, on the value of which the Noble Lady certainly threw some doubt, may be

a poor substitute for nursery schools, but I would encourage them on the ground that if we cannot have nursery schools—and under the county authority in Lancashire we have not got one nursery school—it will be as well to have nursery classes as the next best thing.
I hope that what has been said in this Debate with regard to the Appointed Day will be noted by the Minister in charge. It seems that doubt arose over the weekend because of something said by Sir Percival Sharp. It was felt that the Government were weakening on the question of the Appointed Day. In the article which appeared in "Education" Sir Percival Sharp was speaking entirely for himself as an individual. He did not speak on behalf of the Association of Education Committees, and after the meeting at Bournemouth the executive of that body met, last Friday night, and having heard the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and his reference to the Appointed Day affirmed their opinion that there ought to be no alteration of the date as fixed by the Act. As they are the executive committee of, perhaps, the most important educational association in the country I hope that notice of their opinion will be taken by the Minister.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Morgan: At this late hour I cannot make the speech which I should like to have made on the important occasion of these Estimates and can only, I feel, address a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I should have liked to take the opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on the great work he has done for education in what he calls his excursions up and down the country. No man who has filled his position has had a more lofty conception of what popular education should be for a democracy, and I wish that I had time to follow him into one of the speeches he recently made and to say how much I agree with his sentiments about what should constitute really true and free education in a democratic country like this. But let me say this if I say nothing else, that I am alarmed at the tenour of the Debate to-day, interrupted though it was, in taking such a gloomy view of education in this country. There is no country in the world, so far as I know, that has been so successful in solving the supreme problem of adjusting popular education to modern conditions of life


and livelihood as this country; and I do not think that any of my honourable opponents opposite would disagree with that view.
We have got a good way forward in solving this great problem, and there is no country in the world which has done more to create a practical system of vocational guidance. Although we have heard so much about nursery schools—I have to race through this in order to keep within my time—I should like to say that we have not made a very bad start with nursery schools. If the Government are being teased about what they have done regarding nursery schools I do not think they stand alone, because if I remember rightly even the London County Council have not fulfilled all their promises regarding nursery schools. I have no time to deal with that subject.
I hope that the Board of Education will take steps to see that the part-accomplished scheme of reorganisation is completed as soon as possible. Two things give me some concern in the matter of reorganisation. One is that in the great town areas there is a tendency to reorganise by cutting out the infant schools. In a recent speech the Parliamentary Secretary very rightly said that in no part of education was more progress being made than in the infant departments. If large areas are tending to cut out the infant schools in the process of reorganisation, they are making a mistake. The same thing is to be feared in rural parts of the country. There seems to be a tendency in reorganisation schemes in country areas to get rid of the village schoolmaster, who has for so long been the centre of social activity. That is to be regretted. There is so much of which we can be proud in our educational system that it is a great pity that we should all have been deploring some aspect of it. I know that there is much to be done, particularly on the physical training side and with regard to starting a real course of civics in our schools, but we have to beware of the sad lessons taught us in some of the totalitarian States of the Continent.
I would finish my very short incursion into the Debate by asking one or two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary. Is he satisfied that everything possible is being done for unemployed teachers? If we have to do anything in this discussion it is to insist that we spend wisely the

money that is being voted; does the Parliamentary Secretary think it is wise that in one district, for example, the West Riding of Yorkshire, there should be over 70 teachers unemployed? All those teachers have cost the State money to train. Several cases have come to my knowledge of teachers acting as bath attendants or as librarians at 6s. 9d. a week. There are two remedies; either we must limit the number of entrants into the training colleges or we must reduce the size of classes. I do not care which of those remedies the Parliamentary Secretary likes to select.
There are other questions with which I would have liked to deal if I had had the time. Many of us on this side of the Committee are keen upon educational matters. We can agree with some hon. Members opposite in deploring the conditions of the black-listed schools. I make the suggestion, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to bear it in mind, that we should deal with the junior departments of the non-provided schools in the same way as we have agreed to do in the 1936 Act with the senior schools. Whatever it costs should be spent, and we should get rid of these schools. There is only one other point that I should like to mention now, and that is the question of the staffing of schools in the rural areas. It has been dealt with at some length, but I should like to emphasise that the rural child should have the same opportunities as the child in the urban district of getting proper attention, and should have properly trained teachers to look after him.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I think I shall be expressing the view of all Members of the Committee when I say that it is somewhat deplorable that our discussion on education to-day should have been so greatly curtailed. By reason of the Rules of the House, we have had to sacrifice something like two and a-half hours of our time to a discussion on another subject, quite a proper subject, of course, but one not very closely related to the subject for which to-day was allotted.
I wish to make two points which are more or less strictly Welsh. With regard to the first I can speak for all Members representing Welsh constituencies, regardless of party. I happen to be


chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Group this year, and I think I shall carry their complete assent in what I am about to say. We are very disturbed, as a Welsh group in this House, by the fact that no provision is being made, either by the Board of Education as such or by the National Fitness Council, for a college for physical training in Wales. I hope that this matter will not be dismissed lightly. Scotland, I believe, has one, if not two such organisations. England has one at Leeds, and it will have another very large one under the National Fitness Council in Surrey; and I think it is time that the Welsh claim received more consideration from the Board of Education, as well as from other Departments, than it has received up to the present moment. I beg the hon. Gentleman to consider whether the claim of Wales in this matter is not sufficiently strong to merit a rather more agreeable response than it has had in recent months.
The second point is one which has been put to me by an hon. Member on my side of the House who is closely acquainted with the problem in question. I believe there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among local authorities in South Wales arising from the somewhat different treatment that is meted out to them, as compared with the social service organisations in South Wales, from the point of view of grants. I will give a case in point. I believe it to be true that the Social Service Council in Wales is able, because of its larger resources, mainly due to grants, to pay a much more generous scale to its lecturers for evening class work than local authorities are able to pay. That, really, is not good enough, because it hampers the local authorities in the choice of appropriate lecturers and teachers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into that point, because, if there be any justification for the complaint, it clearly ought to be removed.

Mr. Lindsay: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Is it the National Council of Social Service?

Mr. Jones: Yes, the National Council of Social Service. My third point is not strictly a Welsh point, but has, I believe, a much more general application. We think the time has come when the Ministry of Education might consider in a rather more generous way the problem

of the cost of conveyance of children from their homes to the schools which they happen to be attending. Of course, he will realise that in some of these counties there are little villages and hamlets far removed from the new schools, and the cost of transport is apt to be somewhat heavy. I believe the claim which has been advanced already to the Board, and which I venture to advance again, is sound—that the Board should consider raising the percentage of grant from 20 per cent. to something higher.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech which was much more attractive in phraseology than in fact, if he will allow me to put it that way. It was a most alluring picture that he presented, but it did not reflect the position as we see it. He talked about the recent book which has been issued, making an examination of the rate of admission of children who had once been to elementary schools into the universities. He advanced a certain number of figures to controvert the figures published in the book. We are somewhat disturbed by what we consider to be a tendency to reduce proportionately the entrance of secondary school children to universities, as compared with the entrance of pupils who pass from public schools. Do not let that proposition be dismissed too lightly. Formidable figures can be adduced to show that the tendency will require careful watching; and, indeed, I do not need to turn to Mr. Glass's book on the point, for figures from the annual reports of the Board show that there has been a tendency in the wrong direction.
The total admissions to universities in England and Wales in 1929 amounted to 9,757, and from grant-aided schools the number was 3,638. Then, after a beneficent Labour Government had been in office, the figures in 1931 were 10,831 total entrants, of whom 4,132 were from grant-aided schools; but in 1935 the total admissions numbered 11,655, of whom 3,824 were from grant-aided schools. I do not know what the correct deduction may be. My inference may be wrong. The hon. Gentleman may put another side to the case. But I submit that these figures do challenge very close inquiry, because, after all, it is true that the population of our secondary schools tends to increase. The number of children who pass into the secondary schools tends to increase: therefore, the number of


children who pass into the universities ought to increase. Our complaint is that the tendency is in the opposite direction. We beg the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this at his leisure.
I will pass to the subject of reorganisation. This has now been before the country as a recommendation for something like 12 years. In 1926 the Hadow Committee made its recommendations. That is a very long time in the history of education. I think it is not too much to claim that in 12 years we should register a much larger measure of advance. Even now, I gather from the hon. Gentleman's speech this afternoon, there remains a substantial portion of the work uncompleted. That is reorganisation in the sense that is now accepted by the Board, but, frankly, I have very much doubt as to the educational content of much of this reorganisation. Much of it, in my judgment, is little more than shifting children from one school to another. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) discussed very interestingly a French experiment dealing with the question of reorganisation, but the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that the central idea involved in the French model is not entirely new to education in this country. The National Union of Teachers, if I remember rightly, have advanced a proposal for multiple bias schools before now, and I believe that you cannot really reorganise and give equality of opportunity and educational content to the organisation unless you have a sort of multiple bias school for the 11-plus children. I know that it is late to do it, and it might be almost impossible as the problem may have become almost insuperable by now. I would prefer to have multiple bias schools for 11-plus children, giving a chance to move them according to adaptability and ability when the abilities are disclosed and the aptitudes are discovered.
Whether that be too late or not, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am convinced that you are not going to build up reorganisation effectively in this country until all schools of 11-plus work under the same regulations. I am sure of it; it simply cannot be done. You will have artificial distinctions between the secondary schools and the senior schools or the central schools, as the case may be, and those artificial distinctions,

whether intended or not, will create the impression in the mind of the parent that one school is more meritorious than another school. You must not have grades of schools, because if you do you will give ground for the suspicion, to put it no higher than that, that you are working a sort of class conscious type of education for the 11-plus children. You are not going to do it effectively as it ought to be done until you apply the same regulations for 11-plus schools, be they secondary or anything else. I will not enter into an argument as to the merits of central schools or senior schools, but I cling tenaciously to the general demarcation laid down by the Hadow Committee. We must try to produce schools which cater for those two classes, the academically-minded and the more practical-minded, and I prefer the school which houses both sorts under the same shelter, yielding opportuntiies for transference from time to time without creating any sort of invidious distinction between one type and another.
I turn to the next point discussed here to-night, which, I think, is vital. It is the question of the raising of the school-leaving age. I know that I cannot raise the point too far because it would involve legislation. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) give the Committee the result of the deliberations of the executive of the education authorities at Bournemouth during the week-end. There is no argument for postponing the raising of the school-leaving age. Let me remind the Committee of what has happened. When we were in office our party introduced two Bills to raise the school-leaving age. The last one which came to this House was defeated not on the issue of the raising of the school-leaving age, but upon the religious issue. We had to deal with a situation which was brought about by an enormous increase in the school population, called the bulge, which represented children who would not emerge from the schools until 1934. In order to prepare for that, we stimulated the colleges and universities to provide more teachers, we made provisions for special teachers, and we also said that we would increase the grant from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. in respect of all buildings contractually undertaken between September, 1929, and September, 1932. The crisis came, so that they had


only two years. Millions of extra ney were contracted for by local authorities under the operation of that increased grant from 20 to 50 per cent.
What has happened since that scheme was defeated? The children who would have come under our Bill if it had become an Act from 1933 would have had six years, from 1933 to 1939, during which they would have had the benefit of the school-leaving age. That was lost. The present Government have done the same thing that we did. They have offered to increase the grant from 20 to 50 per cent. Therefore, with our effort and the effort of the present Government it is impossible for the local authorities to say that they have not had a chance. They have had two chances—the chance that we gave them for two years and the chance which the present Government are giving them by their increased grant. Therefore, if the local authorities come along and say they are not ready, it is their own laziness and their unwillingness or inability to prepare for the job. The present Government have not to deal with as big a problem as that with which we had to deal. They have to deal with a much smaller school population. The school population is declining. There are fewer children, and consequently there are more class rooms available. The result is that the case against the raising of the school-leaving age in September, 1939, weakens with every month that passes. I hope the Board will set its teeth firmly against any attempt to postpone the raising of the school-leaving age when the time comes.
It may be argued that the denominational bodies do not like it. Here, again, we must be firm. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) said, rightly, that many members of local authorities, teachers representatives and many people interested in education as such, accepted the Bill of 1936 as a compromise; many of them did so unwillingly. They accepted it, not because they love the denominational cause, but they said that they did not mind making terms on the denominational issue if they could get the raising of the school-leaving age as a consequence. If we are to be told that, having got a grant made possible of from 50 to 75 per cent. to the denominational schools, and having availed themselves of our compromising spirit,

they say, "We do not want an extra number in our schools and we cannot raise the school-leaving age now," it would be a breach of confidence with those who in all good faith supported the Bill of 1936, though unwillingly. There was another difference between our Bill and this Bill. In the Bill which we proposed there was provision for maintenance allowance, but in this Bill there is no such provision. So we were accepting a burden that is not present in connection with this Bill.
I want to ask one or two questions on this matter. We take it for granted, and shall continue to take it for granted, that the Government stand firm by the Act as it is now. The Parliamentary Secretary went to Bournemouth and perhaps used an unfortunate phrase which has been misunderstood. Of course, he did not seek deliberately to mislead the conference. We also take it that the Government mean that they want the benefit of the Act to extend to as many children as possible, otherwise there is no benefit in the Act. How is that to be done? Clearly the best way is to reduce the number of exemptions to the lowest possible limit. That cannot he done if it is left to the initiative or decision of local authorities acting, so to speak, in vacuo. Obviously the line for the Government is to stimulate regional agreements among local authorities so as to get a common interpretation of the phrase "beneficial employment," and by doing so to extend the area of the school-leaving age to larger and wider districts on the same terms. If they could get regional agreements upon a common interpretation of "beneficial employment" it would be tantamount to getting a fairly national standard interpretation of the word "beneficial."
It is only in that way that you can avoid confusion in interpretation between one local authority and another. I found myself upon the experience in regard to the by-laws with reference to the school-leaving age. When that was left to local authorities some acted sympathetically and some did nothing. The result was confusion in areas where the by-law was applied, and in neighbouring areas where it was not applied. We must avoid that as far as we can, and I beg the Government—I believe they will—to use all the authority at their command to see that local authorities arrive at a common inter-


pretation of the phrase "beneficial employment." I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Committee for having spoken so long, but I trust we shall have an assurance from him that real attention is to be given to the business of reorganisation, and that it will be agreed by this House that unless and until an overwhelming case is presented for the postponement of the Act—I see no possibility of that being done—the House will stand by its decision of 1936 that children in 1939 shall attend school until the age of 15.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Lindsay: In the few moments which remain I will try to reply to one or two major points which have been raised. I am sorry that I cannot possibly deal with many of the interesting points which hon. Members have put forward. Like the hon. Member, I also regret that our Debate just when it was being warmed up by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) was interrupted, and I am afraid that there are some hon. Members who are going home with undelivered speeches in their pockets. There is one point I should like to make, because it runs through all the speeches and commentaries which have been made, and it was for this reason that I gave a brief description of education in this country. It is a decentralized system. We are not living in a totalitarian State—for this particular purpose I sometimes wish we were, but we are not—and everybody is agreed that it is very much better to have local authorities with duties and powers. We can visit with punishment the neglect of duties, but I am afraid we can only visit with the disapproval of my Noble Friend and myself the neglect of powers. That is as far as we can go. We can encourage, we can persuade, we can do almost everything short of compelling. That is the position with regard to nursery schools and the provision of meals and feeding generally, but it is not the case with regard to elementary education, where we have given to local education authorities very definite duties.
The Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) raised a number of points to which I should like to refer. The first was exemptions, and it was also raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). The Committee will be aware that whereas local education authorities are bound by Statute to have regard to a number of considerations the decision as

to whether or not exemptions shall be granted is given in their absolute discretion. In the words of the Act:
The determination of the authority shall be conclusive.
I am dealing with the Act, but what we have done is this. We have sent out a circular of good advice from which I should like to quote:
In order to obviate complaints by parents it is clearly desirable to avoid a situation in which adjoining authorities take different views as to the beneficial character of a substantially identical type of employment which is prevalent in both the areas. Accordingly, if difficulties and friction are to be avoided it is of the first importance that all authorities should take an early opportunity of discussing with their neighbours questions of common interest.
I am glad to say that in many areas there has been a ready response to that suggestion. Conferences have been held—I refer particularly to London and the Home Counties, and to the Lancashire authority of which the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) is a member.
The second point raised by the right hon. Member for Keighley was the question of the matriculation examination. The present position in London is that a candidate can obtain a Matriculation Certificate by passing in five Matriculation subjects with credit at the General Schools Examination or by passing the General Schools Examination and the Higher School Certificate. The Matriculation and School Examinations Council of the University are at present considering the possibility of discontinuing the award of Matriculation Certificates and making Matriculation simply a qualification for entering on a University course. It is not yet clear how this Matriculation would be obtained—it might be by a special examination or possibly by the General Schools Examination; but, if the proposal were adopted, it would mean that the award of Matriculation Certificates at the General Schools Examination would be discontinued.
A third point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He was a little critical of some of the grants and machinery of the National Fitness Council. A criticism was made of the grant of—200,000 for universities. Hon. Members are anxious, and very rightly anxious, that the universities should be democratic in their attitude towards the children of elementary schools, and I think they ought to be equally keen that there should be equality of physical education, because


to my mind the equality of physical education is one of the neglected parts of equality in education. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker), who is on the National Fitness Council was, I may say, a very strong supporter of that particular point. The other question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me was with regard to homework. All that I can say there is that the inquiries we have made reveal that the local authorities are taking very seriously the recommendations of the report, especially for children under 12, and there is a strong measure of agreement among the secondary schools.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I will certainly look into the question of the College of Physical Training, and if there is any need for further provision, I shall consider it favourably. I am not quite certain what the hon. Member meant in his remarks concerning the National Council of Social Services money. The money does not come from us, although it may come from some other Department. We are not spending money at the expense of the Welsh local authorities. The question of the increased cost of transport is a very difficult one wherever there are large districts and remote schools in country villages. A criticism which ran through the hon. Member's speech suggested that there is something going on at the present time which is preventing the secondary school boy, who has gone through the elementary school, getting to the University. I admit that at the present time the figures show a slight reduction, and in my opening remarks I promised that I would look into the matter in order to see whether there was any explanation. Frankly, I cannot find one at the moment. There is no diminution in the provision as far as we are concerned, nor, as far as I know, in the proivsion by local authorities.
There has been a great deal of talk about secondary schools, senior schools and the rest, and I say frankly that if we could start afresh, things would be very much simpler. I would not have all these different methods of post-primary education if we could start afresh, but

as I emphasised in my opening remarks, we are dealing with a country which is steeped in tradition, particularly in its educational system. Anyone who has looked at the history of the last 150 years must realise that what we are frying to do is to remould that tradition, to introduce new ideas and to bring these schools in step with modern society. Criticism was made, by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and others, about the small expenditure on nursery schools. There has been criticism that there is a shortage of expenditure on technical schools. What is happening is this. I came to the Board at a time when every aspect of education was being rebuilt. We were trying to do it almost all at once, within a few years. What is happening is that where there is a duty, that is to say, a statutory requirement, with regard to elementary schools and reorganisation, that is taking first place, I admit that.

May I say, finally, with regard to the question of the appointed day, that it would be very foolish of me to stand here and say that every authority is going to be wholly ready at the appointed day. It is not. I am dealing with the situation as I find it, but I say categorically that the Board of Education takes precisely the same view as the executive committee of the Association of Education Committees. The appointed day is on the Statute Book, and the Board has no intention of introducing legislation to vary it. I cannot say more than that. It is very encouraging to note that there is such a large measure of agreement in the Committee on the subject of education. It seems to be growing more and more. I believe there is an old tradition in the Committee that hon. Members opposite should now go into the Division Lobby to vote against the Estimates, but I know that in their hearts they are absolutely with us in pushing forward with the improvement of the whole educational system.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £32,502,230, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 196.

Division No. 240.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Barr, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Banfield, J. W.
Batey, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Barnes, A. J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.




Benson, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
John, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Cooks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dagger, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S)
White, H. Graham


Groves, T. E.
Muff, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Hardie, Agnes
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attereliffe)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.



Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr Adamson.




NOES.


Albery, Sir Irving
Doland, G. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Apsley, Lord
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Keeling, E. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duggan, H. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Atholl, Duchess of
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, J.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Eastwood, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lindsay, K. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lipson, D. L.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Little, Sir E. Graham-


Blair, Sir R.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Loftus, P. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Fleming, E. L.
Lyons, A. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Furness, S. N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Bull, B. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, H. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Butler, R. A.
Grant-Ferris, R.
McKie, J. H.


Cary, R. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Channon, H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Christie, J. A.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Clarke Frank (Dartford)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moreing, A. C.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morgan, R. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Hepworth, J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cranborne, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A, (Monmouth)
Munro, P.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Nall, Sir J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hopkinson, A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Crossley, A. C.
Hewitt. Dr. A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt, A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Culverwell, C. T.
Hunloke, H. P.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Hunter, T.
Patrick, C. M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Petherick, M.


Denville, Alfred
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Dodd, J. S.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.







Proctor, Major H. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ralkes, H. V. A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Warrender, Sir V.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Romer, J. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Spens, W. P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rowlands, G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wragg, H.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Salmon, Sir I.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.



Samuel, M. R. A.
Touche, G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel


Sandys, E. D.
Turton, R. H.
Kerr.


Selley, H. R.
Wakefield, W. W.



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Leslie: rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed.

INFANTICIDE BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I rise to call attention to certain authoritative statements that have recently appeared in the American and Canadian Press with reference to the differences disclosed between the Prime Minister and the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Perhaps I may recall precisely what the late Foreign Secretary said on 21st February:

I should not be frank with the House if I were to pretend that it is an isolated issue as between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself. It is not. Within the last few weeks upon one most important decision of foreign policy which did not concern Italy at all, the difference was fundamental." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1938; cols. 48–9, Vol. 332.]
No information has ever been supplied to this House or the country, so far as I am aware, on what that difference was about, though various suggestions have been made that it touched matters in different parts of the world, but more recently some light has been thrown upon the subject in an authoritative interview which has appeared in the American and Canadian Press. The document, a portion of which I shall read, is a very interesting one, and it sets out what, I imagine, are the views of the Government in a very clear way, rather illuminating and disturbing, perhaps saying nothing very new but putting it in rather a blunter manner than it is accustomed to be put in this House. The information is new only on one point, and that is the point to which I shall refer.
This document is a cable sent from London on 14th May by Joseph Driscoll to his paper the "Montreal Daily Star." It also appeared in the "New York Herald-Tribune," and a number of other interviews appeared about the same time in the American and Canadian Press. These are the words upon which I rely to show the authoritative nature of the communication—the interview covers a whole series of subjects concerned with foreign affairs, and I can only quote a short portion of it:
London, May 14th.—This correspondent is now privileged to shed what can truly be called official light on the real British attitude


towards Czechoslovakia, Spain, Abyssinia, not to forget those axis twins, Hitler and Mussolini. The accuracy of what follows cannot be disputed, and the fact that it can be released for publication in the form of background information is a testimonial to the growing desire over here for Anglo-American understanding and co-operation in world affairs.
There is only one further extract which I will read before coming to the actual matter. This is interesting though perhaps not new:
It is admitted that Britain would like to swing Germany and Italy into a working agreement with Britain and France to keep the peace of Europe. Soviet Russia is excluded on the ground that it does not work well in harness, with the proviso that some day Russia, if she behaves, may be admitted to membership.
Now I come to the passage:
It is admitted that the United States was the country cryptically referred to by Captain Anthony Eden in resigning the Foreign Secretaryship when he said that, apart from his differences with Mr. Chamberlain over Italy, there was one other source of fundamental disagreement between them. However, Whitehall does not feel at liberty to disclose the nature of the disagreement over America, since Washington is preserving silence, too. All that can be said is that Mr. Chamberlain, as well as Captain Eden, has a high opinion of American friendship and co-operation. The difference, it is implied, was one of method rather than principle, and history will vindicate the Prime Minister.
[Interruption.] That may be so, but it is not the point that I am dealing with to-night. I cannot believe that it will be suggested by the Prime Minister that any experienced and responsible journalist would dare to use language of that kind in a despatch to the United States and Canada unless he had some authority for it, and high authority too. I do not know how far it may be desired to go in this matter, and I do not for a moment believe that the Prime Minister will take refuge in throwing it upon the Press and saying that he cannot be responsible for what the Press says. He knows very well that that is not the case in this instance.
No one, on behalf of the Government, has ever before made a statement such as is referred to here. If information about this fundamental difference is to be given at all, it should be given to this House first, and not to the American Press. I am going to ask whether we may have information on that subject to-night. I am not suggesting that there is anything in the least improper in the

Prime Minister, or any Cabinet Minister, or anyone else on their behalf, seeing journalists and conveying their views. It is a perfectly proper and natural thing. My point is as to the disclosure of fresh information that has not been made known to anybody before. There are at the present time, as we well know, two views on foreign policy in this country and in the House, one associated with the Prime Minister and one with the late Foreign Secretary. They are widely different, each commanding substantial and considerable support in the country and considerable support in the Conservative party. In order that we and the country may be able to make up our minds as to which is right—[Interruption.] Certainly; the country is entitled to know what is the nature of the difference between the Prime Minister and the late Foreign Secretary. It may be that they have made up their minds but my own belief, without saying which is right, is that as much information as possible should be supplied on this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: May I interrupt the hon. Member?

Mr. Mander: I cannot give way because the time is exceedingly limited. In view of the clearly authoritative nature of this interview—[HON. MEMBERS: "With whom?" "What interview?"]—I do not think the Prime Minister will dispute it, as he well knows the circumstances of it—I ask him to say why this disclosure was made to the American Press and not to this House, and what the precise nature was of the difference in regard to America. I hope he will do it, and I hope that the American Government will take similar action on their side of the water.

11.23 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): We have known for a long time that the hon. Member likes to pose as the enfant terrible of this House. His sense of humour is extensive and peculiar. He indulges it by endeavouring to stir up mischief, if possible, with other countries with whom he ostensibly desires that this country should retain friendship. In the present case he is hardly as innocent as he has made out. He tells us that no responsible journalist would ever dare to say in any paragraph purporting to give official in-


formation: "This cannot be denied" or "This represents exactly the views of official bodies." I must say that he has had very little experience of the manners and methods of journalists if he can really believe that.
In this particular document, of which, for the sake of greater accuracy, I also secured a copy, no statement is made about an interview, although certainly the author does purport to have obtained information which he describes as official. As to the particular passage to which the hon. Member has drawn attention, what is the gravamen of the charge? Apparently it is that a phrase in a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) some four months ago has now been illuminated—although nothing has been said about it during more than four months—in this interview, and that information has been given which the hon. Member declares should have been given to this House. The hon. Member, as he does not know who is the person who provided the information to the journalist—

Mr. Mander: I do know.

Hon. Members: Who?

The Prime Minister: —has no right to assume that that person is in a position to give the information to this House. What is the passage to which he refers? After referring to this phrase, the journalist goes on to say:
However, Whitehall does not feel at liberty to disclose the nature of the disagreement.
Therefore, it appears that the journalist did not get the information after all.

Mr. Mander: It seems to me that the Prime Minister is trying to evade the issue. The information which the journalist got was that the difference was over America. Is that true or not?

Hon. Members: Quite wrong.

The Prime Minister: I do not feel called upon to confirm or deny anything that appeared in a newspaper, without any authority. The hon. Member hoped that by taking up this interview he was going to obtain some information which would satisfy his restless and, I think, rather mischievous curiosity. I do not feel disposed to satisfy him, but to let him go on

guessing whether it is correct or not correct to say that it was in reference to some matter connected with the United States of America. What is quite clear is that, whether or not the information was given to the journalist, and although the hon. Member interrupted me just now to say that what he wanted to know was whether it was or was not correct that the statement referred to America, that is not what he said in his speech. What he said was that he wanted to have full particulars of the whole difference. That is precisely what I call exercising a restless and mischievous curiosity.
The hon. Member is not entitled to have full information about every subject discussed between the Government of this country and the Government of another country. In the course of our relations with other countries, a great number of subjects are discussed and a great number of proposals are put forward, sometimes from one side, sometimes from the other. Sometimes they come to fruition and result in action. Sometimes further reflection leads one or other country to the conclusion that it is not desirable or worth while to proceed with the original proposition. Are we to be told that every time something of that kind happens, it must be brought out into the public eye hereafter in order that the hon. Member may make up his mind which side is right.

Mr. Mander: No. I suggest only when your Foreign Secretary resigns.

The Prime Minister: The late Foreign Secretary did not resign over this incident, at any rate. Therefore, that point is irrelevant to this particular matter. The whole House had full infromation both from my right hon. Friend and myself as to the points of difference on which the late Foreign Secretary did resign. There is no need of any further elucidation of that. The House knows the whole thing from beginning to end. The hon. Member is trying as I say, to fish around and get some information out of which he thinks he can extract some mischief, and, in my opinion, it is not desirable, either from the point of view of the House or the interests of the country, that these matters should be discussed on a fishing inquiry of that kind.

Mr. Mander: May I ask the Prime Minister this further question? Did he see this journalist himself?

The Prime Minister: As I have said before, I am not going to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. I am not going to attempt to deny or to affirm anything in connection with a statement in this paper or a statement in any other paper at this time or any other time on matters of this or any other kind. That

is my final word, arid I do not think there is anything more to be said.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.